Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Textool Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR39(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards group gratuity fund under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It seems that the assessee-company had made this payment to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC') as the said sum was insured by the LIC. There is no denial that the Textool Company Employees Group Gratuity Fund is a duly approved gratuity fund created for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the said company and that it is also an irrevocable trust. It also could not be denied that the payments were made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC instead of a contribution towards the approved gratuity fund. However, the LIC had accepted the payment as on behalf of the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gimpex (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)112
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar,J.Two questions are referred to us. They are : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on foreign travel, advertisement, foreign branch expenses, etc, though the assessee was only purchasing goods from China and selling the same in USA and no export of Indian goods was carried on?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the fixed deposit of surplus funds should be assessed under the head 'business 2. We shall take the first question first. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee on the basis of its earlier orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The case of the department is, however, that the assessee is not exporting any goods and admittedly the goods are being purchased in China and sold in U.S.A. and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Smt. Sujatha Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]254ITR118(Mad)
V. S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to recompute the penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'The assessee is an individual and the concerned assessment year is 1984-85. Though the return under the Wealth Tax Act was due to be filed on 30-6-1984, the same was filed on 24-3-1986. Hence, action was initiated by the assessing officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Act and while completing the assessment proceedings, a penalty of Rs. 62,360 was ordered. The assessee was aggrieved and preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), who while upholding the penalty, remitted the matter to the assessing officer to revise the quantum of penalty with reference to the net wealth after making a fresh assessment as per the directions of the Tribunal in W. T. A. No. 797 (Mds.) of 1989, dat...
Tag this Judgment!K. Selvam Vs. Visalam Chit Fund Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC401; (2002)1MLJ561
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner asrevision petitioner against the order and decretal order dated12.11.2001 and made in E.A.No.478 of 2000 in E.P.No.257 of 1996 in O.S.No.203 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate J udge,Srivilliputhur.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of the Civil RevisionPetition are as follows:- The second respondent herein is the owner ofthe property described as fourth item in the execution petition inE.P.No.257 of 1996 and the said property was brought to sale in courtauction in execution of the decree obtained by one Lakshmi against thesecond respondent herein in O.S.No.72 of 1986 on the file of the SubCourt, Srivilliputhur for the amount due under a promissory note fromthe second responde t herein to the above said Lakshmi. The demised property was sold in Court auction in E.P.No.15 of 1989 in O.S.No.72of 1986 on 4.2.1994 and the said property was purchased by oneTamilselvam admittedly for ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Refrigerator Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC20; 2002(141)ELT632(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. With the consent of both the sides, this writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 182/99 (M-III) dated 1-10-1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, has not granted a personal opportunity and had the personal opportunity been granted, the petitioner would have produced the relevant documents in support of its plea that because of the financial hardship, it was not in a position to pre-deposit the money as demanded.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai , wherein this Court has held that the appellate authority in exercising quasi-judicial power should hear the applicant and record the reasons for the conclusions ultimately arrived at.4. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V.K. Krishnan, Vs. Bsnl-chennai Telephones by Its Deputy General Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ512
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court to issue writ of declaration that the disconnection of their Telephone Nos. 4868323, 4863499 and 4869499 respectively is arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioner in W.P.No. 658 of 2002, he is a subscriber since 1-2-1985, having a telephone Connection bearing No. 4868323, coming under Valasaravakkam Exchange, under the administrative control of the respondents. He has been paying the periodical bi-monthly bills regularly and promptly, to the respondents within the due dates and thus maintaining the above telephone perfectly. While so, on 6-12-2001, the said telephone number was disconnected by the respondents. On verification with the repspondents, it was known that his telephone was disconnected because of alleged non-payment of 5 bills, relating to the year 98-99 by other subscriber Miss Ramyah, having telephone No. 4863599, who is none other than the daughter of the petitioner, whose telephone also was ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vetrivel Vs. A.L. Alavandar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4261
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for violating the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. No. 130 of 2001 in Crl. R. C. No. 21 of 2001 dated 5-1-2001.2. The case in brief is as follows :The petitioner is the President of Trichy Thanjai Pudukottai Quaid-e-Milleth Districts Film Distributors Association, a registered body. The petitioner was elected as the President in the election conducted on 7-5-2000. He is discharging the duties to the best of his ability. One R. Srinivasan convened General Body Meeting on 22-11-2000. As per the byelaws, the Secretary has no power or authority to convene General Body Meeting. It appears that the said Srinivasan has moved a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and other office bearers. The said Srinivasan brought non-members of the Association and behaved unruly, resulted in (sic) which, there was a confusion. There was an illegal resolu...
Tag this Judgment!Mas Chew Gums (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]127STC424(Mad)
ORDERHeard learned counsels appearing for the parties.'...............I therefore confirm the above proposal and determine their total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,76,631 and the tax at 13.8 per cent in the absence of 'C' form declaration or Form 'D'.'2. After so observing, the assessing authority calculated the tax due at Rs. 2,43,750 and after taking into account the payment of tax of Rs. 10,124, calculated the balance payable to be at Rs. 2,33,626, the assessing authority levied penalty and directed payment of Rs. 3,50,439 by calculating the balance due to be Rs. 2,33,626. This assessment order dated October 28, 1996 was served on the petitioner on January 21, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on February 18, 1998 before the assessing authority stating that there has been an error apparent on the face of order by calculating the tax due as Rs. 2,43,750 even though the turnover had been accepted at Rs. 1,76...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›