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.
G.D. Gopal Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)466
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.The common question referred to us in these two TCs is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the exercise of powers by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 was within the period of limitation ?'2. The following factual circumstances would highlight the controversy. It will be seen that section 263 of the Income Tax Act provided a limitation of 2 years from the date of the passing of the order for revising that order under that section. The amendment which was made by section 47 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 provides now that the said limitation would stand extended and the limitation of the two years would start not from the date of the passing of the orders but from the last date of the relevant financial year. The amendment is to be found in the following words :The amended section 263(2) runs as under :...
Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN342(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpukar, J. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether depreciation as per the Income Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, is to be allowed in all cases which are pending on 2-4-1983 irrespective of the assessment year involved or has it to be allowed only in 1984-85 and subsequent years ?'2. The learned counsel for the assessee very fairly makes a statement that the issue covered in this question has been decided against the assessee in the decision in Mercantile Credit Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]245ITR245(Mad) . In that view, the question referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue....
Mansur Ali, Vs. Erumapatti Town Panchayat Rep. by Its Executive Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ128
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Though the sole respondent was served through Court as early as 3.4.2002 and through the lower Court' counsel, none appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioners filed O.S.No.526 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal for declaration of their title and for consequential injunction. The (2)respondent herein was served with the summons in the suit giving the date of hearing as 7.12.2000. The respondent did not appear in the suit and ultimately, on 7.12.2000, they were set ex parte. The other defendant in the suit appeared and contested the claim of the petitioners. Evidence was taken and after arguments were heard, the suit was listed for judgment on 21.9.2001. On that day, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1042 of 2001 for setting aside the order dated 7.12.2000 setting the respondent herein ex parte. The said application was allowed by the Court below by an order dated 1.10.2001, against which, the present revision has been filed.3. ...
Sakthivel Vs. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ719
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the application for amendment. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 33 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur which suit was laid for specific performance. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed LA. No. 588 of 2001 seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the alternative relief of advance amount paid by him. The said application was dismissed by the Court below. As against the same, the present revision has been filed.2. When the amendment is sought for the inclusion of the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount, there cannot be any option for the respondent to oppose the same. In case, if the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, naturally he will be entitled for the refund of the advance amount subject to the conditions stated in the terms of the agreement. Hence, the amendment cannot be refused on technical ground. Accordingly, the order o...
Emico Kcp Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN48(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. Two questions are referred to us at the instance of the assessee and under the directions of this court. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to interest under section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the net refund amount determined at Rs. 1,95,951 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 208 to 219 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a payment of Rs. 12,00,000 made on 14-3-1979 should be treated as advance payment of tax ?'The two questions are inter-linked and they are not happily worded in the sense that the questions did not display the real controversy which will be clear from the following facts.2. The assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee, who was liable to pay the advance tax, filed an estimate on 13-9-1978. The assessee estimated the payable amount at Rs. 14,18,506 and made the payment of Rs. 4,75,000 on 15-9-1978. It made a...
Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr. Vs. Saradha Transport and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)468; [2003]260ITR297(Mad); (2002)3MLJ15
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. The above batch of writ appeals have been filed questioning the orders of the learned single judge, in striking down Circular No. 681, dated March 8, 1994 (see [1994] 206 ITR (St.) 299), issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the ground of it being ultra vires Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 194C of the Act obligates any person paying any amount due to a contractor in pursuance of a contract, to deduct a particular percentage of amount as income-tax. This can be called as tax deduction at source. The assessees, who are transport contractors and entitled for payment for carriage of goods, were aggrieved by the action of the income-tax authorities in seeking to deduct the amount at source by invoking Section 194C of the Act. Their contention was that the circular, which has been issued authorising tax deduction at source was illegal and ultra vires, as the substantive law, i.e., Section 194C of...
Central Board of Direct Taxes Vs. Sri Saradha Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN168(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.The above batch of writ appeals has been filed questioning the orders of the learned Single Judge in striking down Circular No. 681, dated 8-3-1994, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the ground of it being ultra vires section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 194C obligates any person paying any amount due to a contractor in pursuance of a contract, to deduct a particular percentage of amount as income-tax. This can be called as tax deduction at source. The assessees, who were transport contractors and entitled to payment for carriage of goods, were aggrieved by the action of the income-tax authorities in 'seeking to deduct the amount at source by invoking section 194C. Their contention was that the circular, which has been issued authorizing tax deduction at source was illegal and ultra vires, as the substantive law, i.e., section 194C does not authorize any tax deduction at source for mere carriage ...
K.S. Venkataraman and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR193(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the assessee as per the directions of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made in the case was not barred by limitation ?'2. The following facts will highlight the controversy.3. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, admitting a total income of Rs. 4,03,800. The return is dated July 19, 1978. However, on June 21, 1980, the assessee wrote a letter to the Income-tax Officer stating that a sum of Rs. 31,061 was wrongly included in the total income shown in the return and that it was liable to be ignored and, therefore, the Assessment Officer was requested to complete the assessment excluding the figure of Rs. 31,061. The total income shown in the return then would come to Rs. 3,72,739. The Assessment Officer computed ...
K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN151(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred at the instance of the assessee as per the directions of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment made in the case was not barred by limitation ?'Following facts will highlight the controversy.2. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, admitting a total income of Rs. 4,03,800. The return is dated 19-7-1978. However, on 21-6-1980, the assessee wrote a letter to the Income Tax Officer stating that a sum of Rs. 31,061 was wrongly included in the total income shown in the return and that it was liable to be ignored and, therefore, the assessing officer was requested to complete the assessment excluding the figure of Rs. 31,061. The total income shown in the return then would come to Rs. 3,73,729. The ass...
R. Kannabiran Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1108]
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli)-first respondent in TNSC Appeal Case 8/81 dated 27-6-95 confirming the order of the second respondent removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the second respondent Society and he joined service on 21-9-72. One Balaraman, Sales Manager has falsely implicated the petitioner as if he refused to receive the tapal and thus, amounting to dereliction of duty. It was also their case that on 8-1-79 he shouted at the superior officer on being suspended from service. A Charge Memo was given on 21-1-79, for which he replied on 29-1-79. An enquiry was conducted and ultimately the enquiry officer had submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of all the cha...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »