Chennai Court July 2002 Judgments
B.V. Leathers, Periamet, Chennai, Rep. by Its K. Vinitha, Vs. Superint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2002LC785(Madras); 2002(150)ELT24(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. These three Crl.O.Ps are filed by the manufacturers and exporters of finished leather. According to the manufacturers, the production of finished leather involves 25 operations and mainly they are technical in nature. Part of the operations are manual. Exports are made through Customs House. When the goods were tried to be exported, the Assistant Collector took samples and found that they did not satisfy the test of finished leather; when they were sent to the Central Leather Research Institute, it found that the same were not 'finished leather' according to the standards fixed by them. Therefore, the containers containing leathers were seized. W.P.No.18356/97 was filed by the manufacturers and the goods were taken delivery of on deposit of 5% of the value of the goods. Thereafter, the Collector, Customs levied the penalty and fine which was equivalent to the value of the goods. The Commissioner of Customs also came to the conclusion based upon the opinion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Photographic Company Ltd., (Previously Kodak Limited), Madras V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC435(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. A common question that arises in the appeal is whether the sales of photography goods effected by the appellant/assessee to the local purchasers for the assessment year 1976-77 on the strength of actual users import license are exempt from the levy of sales-tax under the CST Act on the ground that the sales were in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India. 2. The assessee is a dealer in photography films and equipments and for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee had imported the photography goods to the tune of Rs.5,55,525/- on the basis of the actual users license and sold the same to the actual buyers. The assessee claimed that the sales were 'in the course of import into the territory of India' and hence, not liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the actual buyer and the foreign seller, but there was ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Devaraj Vs. T.K. Koya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ520
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Chengalpattu against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. This court, normally would not be inclined to quash the proceedings of an offence under Section 138 of the Act, unless the mandate of Sections 138 and 142 of the Act has not been strictly followed. However, this is one of those cases, where there appears to be a lacuna on the part of the complainant, of having not spoken anything about the cause of action that arose for consideration. 3. The short facts as disclosed in the complaint is that the petitioner had given two cheques bearing Nos.344543 and 344544 dated 20.03.2001 and 29.03.2001 (the details of which need not be gone into for the purpose of this petition) in favour of the complainant, of which, one cheque, on presentation got dishonoured on the ground o...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar, the Tamilnadu Magnesite Limited, Salem and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ212
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'Act') was issued in the year 1984, proposing to acquire 196.44 acres of land in Thathiengarpatty village and Tekkampatty village in Omalur Taluk, Salem District for the benefit of Tamilnadu Magnesite Limited (TANMAG), Salem for setting up rotary kiln for manufacture of dead burnt magnesite for installation of benefication plant and manufacture of high quality refractory bricks. After conducting an enquiry under Section 5, declaration under Section 6 was made during the year 1984-85. In fact, some of the land owners voluntarily surrendered possession even prior to Section 4(1) notification i.e., prior to 1984. Suffice to mention for the purpose of this case, process of taking possession of entire area referred supra was completed in the year 1986.2. An award enquiry was held and the Land Acquisition Officer passed as many as ten awards viz., Award Nos.1/1986 to 9/198...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC424(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These tax revision petitions are filed against the orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, wherein the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee and dismissed the enhancement petitions filed by the State. 2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) had reported for the assessment year 1987-88 the total and taxable turnover of a sum of Rs.81,047/- under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the assessing officer determined the total turnover at Rs.2,13,412, which was also the taxable turnover for that year. The assessee had reported for the assessment year 1988-89 a total and taxable turnover of Rs.1,39,589/- and Rs.60,393/- respectively, but the assessing officer has determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs.2,13,412/-. 3. The difference in the determination of total taxable turno...
Tag this Judgment!Super Spg. Mills Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)511; [2004]265ITR233(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case, both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue and referred the following questions of law under Section 256(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Questions of law referred at the instance of the assessee:-(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a valid charge or mortgage was created by the deed of hypothecation trust dated 1-4-1979 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of interest of Rs.83,292/- in the assessment year 1980-81 and of Rs.1,14,807/- in the assessment year 1981-82 under Section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are justified in law ?Questions of law referred at the instance of the Revenue:-(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee company is entitled to a deduction of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Kalavathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR361(Mad)
1. The appeal in Tax Case No. 1150 of 1991 is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', dated May 31, 1998 in Income-tax (Acquisition) Appeal No. 14 (Mds) of 1998.2. The respondent herein is one of the transferees of the properties situated in No. 301/302, Mowbrays Road, Chennai. The transfer of the said property was effected by an instrument of transfer dated April 24, 1985, in favour of five transferees and one of the transferees is the respondent herein in the appeal.3.The competent authority, notified by the Central Government under the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, initiated proceedings for acquisition of the property and the publication of notice in the Official Gazette was made under Section 269D(1) of the Act, dated January 4, 1996. The competent authority was of the opinion, that the value of the property was understated and, therefore, he initiated the proceedings for the acquisition of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mrs. Kalavathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)560
By the CourtThe appeal in Tax Case No. 1150 of 1991 is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', dated 31-5-1998, in IT (Acqn.) Appeal No. 14 (Mds)/1998.2. The respondent herein is one of the transferees of the properties situated in No. 301/302, Mowbrays Road, Chennai. The transfer of the said property was effected by an instrument of transfer dated 24-4-1985, in favour of five transferees and one of the transferees is the respondent herein in the appeal.3. The competent authority, notified by the Central Government under the provisions of the Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiated proceedings for acquisition of the property and the publication of notice in the Official Gazette was made under section 269D(1) of the Act, dated 4-1-1996. The competent authority was of the opinion, that the value of the property was understated and therefore, he initiated the proceedings for the acquisition of the property. The competent authority, after h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Chandrakanth and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR14(Mad)
1. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessees') were partners in a firm manufacturing scented betel nut known as 'Asoka', along with two other brothers. The firm came into existence by an instrument of partnership dated May 11, 1973, and it is unnecessary to notice the changes that took place in the constitution of the firm subsequent to the formation of the partnership, but it is, however, necessary to notice the change in the composition of the partners on September 6, 1976, when a limited company under the name and style, 'Asoka Betelnut Company Private Limited' was admitted as a partner along with the assessees with the result, the firm became reconstituted with four partners. The firm was subsequently dissolved on March 31, 1977, by an instrument of dissolution dated April 11, 1977. Prior to the dissolution, an item of property known as Asoka Building which comprised land on which was situate the residential house as well as factory premises was purchased by the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR123(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The questions came to be referred at the instance of the assessee, they being :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purpose of arriving at the capital employed in various units, the liabilities of head office mainly sales tax loan and fixed deposits should be deducted ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission is a part of remuneration and confirming the disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act of Rs. 48,000 paid to general manager of the company ?' 2. In so far as the second question is concerned, learned counsel, Mr. Janar-dhana Raja, very fairly states that it is covered against him by the order in thecase of Metal Powder Co. Ltd. v. C1T : [1999]238ITR756(Mad) . In that view, that question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.3. In so far as the first question is concerned, the following facts will be essential t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »