Chennai Court July 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dadha Plantations (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR639(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common questions of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 of the assessee.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance of interest should be made on interest payments made to the directors and shareholders on the credit balances in the current accounts held by them with the assessee in terms of Section 40A(8) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest payment made to the directors and shareholders on their deposits with the assessee-company is excepted by the provisions of Section 40A(8) on the basis of the ratio of the decision lai...
Cit Vs. Mrs. Rajalakshmi Venkatakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN347(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the revenue in relation to the assessment year 1983-84 of the assessee reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 34,386 received by the assessee from Royal Insurance Co., England, is not taxable in her hands ?'2. The Tribunal has followed an earlier order rendered in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1978-79 and held that the amount received by the assessee from Royal Insurance Co., England, was not taxable.3. Mr. T.C.A. Ramanujam, the learned senior standing counsel for the department, in his fairness has submitted that the earlier order of the Tribunal was subject-matter of consideration by this court and this court has already decided the question against the revenue. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue and following the said decision, we answer...
Cit Vs. Premier Instruments (Cbe) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN343(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred is as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing depreciation on exchange fluctuation relating to the assessment year 1979-80 ?'2. The question referred is already decided subsequently by the various decisions including that of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the benefit of section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in favour of the assessee. It has not been disputed before us that the value of the assets acquired from outside India with foreign exchange suffered a modification in their value, as a result of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange between the rate determined by the government and the actual rates. The Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the increased liability would go to increase the cost of the asset. The Tribunal has also correctly held that the difference has arisen due to the re-fixation of the value of th...
Cit Vs. Smt. Janaki Loganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN266(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. The common question of law referred at the instance of the revenue in relation to the assessment years of the assessee 1973-74 to 1977-78 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the pension paid to the assessee, a widow of the United Nations Ex-Official from the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund, is exempt from income-tax ?'2. The respondent has not yet been served. However, we proceed with the tax case as the question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee.3. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the pension amount received by a widow of the United Nations Ex-Official from the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund is exempt from the levy of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. K. Ramaiah : [1980]126ITR340(KAR) has held that the pension amount received by the U.N. pensioners is exempt from tax. We are of the view t...
Cit Vs. V.K. Vivekanandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN333(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the assessment year 1980-81 of the assessee.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that jackpot winnings cannot be assessed in the status of Body of Individuals/Association of Persons and it should be assessed separately in the hands of the members in their individual capacity ?'2. The tax case is pending on the file of this court from the year 1990 and when the matter earlier came up before this court on 5-6-2002, we found that there was no representation by the respondent. Hence, we permitted the counsel for the revenue to serve notice on the respondent by private service returnable in three weeks.3. Mr. T.C.A. Ramanujam, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue, submitted that in pursuance of the direction of this court dated 5-6-2002, the Income Tax Officer who had jurisdictio...
Cgt Vs. A.P. Madhavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN350(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donee from whom the gift-tax was sought to be recovered under section 29 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, could file an appeal under section 22 of the Gift Tax Act ?'2. Mr. R. Meenakshisundaram, the learned counsel takes notice for the respondent.3. When the case was taken up for argument today, it was found that the assessee is no more and has expired. However, since this question is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court, it would not be necessary to wait till the legal representatives are brought on record.The question is covered by the decision in CGT v. A. C. Mahesh : [2001]252ITR440(Mad) where this court has considered a right in favour of the donee under section 22 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, from whom the tax is sought to be recovered.4. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and ag...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Premier Instruments (Cbe) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)566
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The question referred is as under:'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing depreciation on exchange fluctuation relating to the asst. yr. 1979-80 ?'2. The question referred is already decided subsequently by the various decisions including that of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving the benefit of Section 43A in favour of the assessee. It has not been disputed before us that the value of the assets acquired from outside India with foreign exchange suffered a modification in their value as a result the fluctuations in the foreign exchange as between the rate determined by the Government and the actual rates. The Tribunal, in our view, has correctly held that the increased liability would go to increase the cost of the asset. The Tribunal has also correctly held that the difference has arisen due to the refixation of the value of the foreign currency to Indian rupee...
S. Udhyakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ827
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the orders passed by this Court on 18.6.2002 in W.P.M.P. No. 29105 of 2002 in W.P. No. 21056. The writ petition was filed questioning the validity of Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 2002, and particularly Section 6 thereof.2. Mr. M.K. Stalin, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is holding the post of Mayor, having been elected in the direct election held during the month of October, 2001. He is also M.L.A. of the Thousand Lights Assembly Constituency. By the impugned amending Act 'One Man One Post' rule has been imposed and time of 15 days from the date of notification was stipulated to opt either the post of M.L.A. or Mayor, and if the above is not intimated within the afore-said period, then Mayor would cease to hold his office. Such a notice has been issued against Mr. M.K. Stalin pursuant to the notification dated 4th June, 2002. 15 days time expired with the expiration of 18th of June, 2002...
Lakshmi, Vs. Mani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1980; (2002)3MLJ133
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The claimants are the appellants. 2. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking for the award of compensation of Rs.8 lakhs for the death of the husband of the first appellant, since he died in the road accident when the lorry belonging to the second respondent which was insured with the Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, hit against the deceased.3. The Tribunal, after enquiry, awarded Rs.2,16,000/- with 12 % interest from the date of petition till realisation, directing the first and second respondents, namely, the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay the said award amount, holding that the Insurance Company, the third respondent herein, is not liable to pay the award amount, as the first respondent/driver was not possessing the driving licence which has been proved by the Insurance Company. Seeking for the enhancement of the award and for modification of the award with reference to the liability of the Insurance Company, the claimants have ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Esplanade, Chennai Vs. Arun Prakash,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ207; (2002)3MLJ262
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement, as the issue raised in these appeals is one and the same and the appeals also arise out of the common order rendered by the Tribunal in two claim petitions. 2. According to the claimants, Dhanasekaran and Arun Prakash, on 30-11-1995, at about 7 p.m., when the claimant Arun Prakash was driving his motor cycle from south to north direction and the claimant Dhanasekaran was the pillion-rider, the Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-D-3279 came from west to east direction with excessive speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle of the claimants. With the result, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries. 3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company were the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded that the vehicle involved in this case was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting in seriou...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »