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.
Cit Vs. Essen (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN324(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The common question referred to at the instance of the revenue is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the year 1971-72/1972-73 is invalid in law and accordingly in cancelling the reassessment made under section 147(b)?'2. Finding that inspite of the pendency of the reference proceedings for over 10 years, the assessee was not before us, we had directed the department to serve the assessee again by a private notice. Accordingly, the department had tried to serve the assessee on the address given in the assessment order, i.e., No. 3, Cathedral Road, Madras. However today, the learned senior standing counsel for the department reports that the assessee was not to be found there. It is obvious, therefore, that the assessee who has moved from that address has not bothe...
Hotel Ramprasad Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN348(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 49,000 being the interest on moneys borrowed and diverted for overdrawal by the partner of the firm ?'2. Mr. K. Ramagopal, the learned counsel for the applicant, very fairly states that this question is covered against him in the decision in Milapchand R. Shah v. CIT : [1965]58ITR525(Mad) where the Division Bench of this court has held that if the amounts are directly diverted for non-business purposes, then the interest thereof would not be allowable. Similar view has been taken in CIT v. Sujanni Textiles (P) Ltd. : [1997]225ITR560(Mad) by another Division Bench of this court where one of us was a party (NVBJ).3. In that view, we answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue....
Abid Usman and Co. Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]132STC156(Mad)
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, made in O.P. No. 399 of 2002 and O.M.P. No. 481 of 2002 dated April 29, 2002.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondents 2 and 3.3. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as below :The assessment order was passed against the petitioner by the Commercial Tax Officer on February 29, 2000. As against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vellore on April 24, 2000 and the said appeal was rejected on February 27, 2001 and the copy of the order was received by the petitioner only on March 23, 2001. Though the petitioner had further remedy of second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it filed a rectification petition before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on May 4, 2001. Since t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)187; [2002]258ITR253(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 1974-75 of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to provisions of rule 103 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is eligible for deduction of gratuity of Rs. 3,41,202 as admissible under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to provisions of Rule 103 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal's interpretation that the last drawn salary could also be construed to be salary during the year is sustainable in law ?'2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of gratuity amount of Rs. 3,41,203 paid to an approved gratuity fund as a contribution made to the fund. ...
A. Abdul Rahim Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR714(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. T.C.A. Ramanujam, learned senior standing counsel takes notice for the Department. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. 3. The short question that arises is whether the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer, which was reduced by the Commissioner of Income-tax, and which was further reduced by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is proper and whether any question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The assessee had constructed a multi-storeyed building in Nagapattinam in an area of about 17,000 sq. feet and it was a commercial building let out to a bank, telegraph office and a portion of it was also let out for running a lodgeapart from ground floor being used for shop rooms let out to different persons. The assessee has estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 15,85/000, and the Assessing Officer referre...
Medical Superintendent, Irt, Rt. Sanatorium Vs. Presiding Officer, Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ1147Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Salem, dated May 7, 1995, made in I.D. No. 176 of 1992, the Medical Superintendent, IRT, RT Sanatorium, Perundurai, has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The second respondent one K. Jeevanandam is employed as a contractor who was to undertake supply of men for work on contract basis, and under him several people were working under contract. He never worked as a cook on daily basis. He was stopped from the month of June 1988 from taking any contract work. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 176 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent claiming reinstatement with back wages on the ground that he was employed as cook on daily wage of Rs. 9 and he was abruptly stopped from service orally from August 10, 1988 without assigning any reason.3. On the other hand, it is the case of the first respondent that without looking into th...
A. Abdul Rahim Vs. Ito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)203
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. T.C.A. Ramanujam, learned senior standing counsel takes notice for the department.2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91.3. The short question that arises is whether the estimate made by the Income Tax Officer, which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), and which was further reduced by the Tribunal is proper and whether any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.4. The assessee had constructed a multistoreyed building in Nagapattinam in an area of about 17,000 sq. ft. and it was a commercial building let out to a bank, telegraph office and a portion of it was also let out for running a lodge apart from ground floor being used for shop rooms let out to different persons. The assessee has estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 15,85,000, and the assessing officer referred the question of valuation of the property to the Departm...
R. Baskar, Vs. Auto Care Centre, Madras and the Presiding Officer 1st ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR75]; (2003)ILLJ700Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1.The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award of the 2nd respondent dated 04-04-1995, 06-04-1995, 07-04-1995, 06-04-1995, 07-04-1995, 07-0-4-1995, 06-04-1995 in I.D. Nos. 937, 946, 963, 947, 962, 948 and 938 of 1990 and quash the same.2. In all these writ petitions, common question of law arise for consideration, hence they are disposed of by a common order.3. Heard both sides. The petitioners in the above writ petitions were appointed as apprentices in the 1st Respondent/Management on 14-03-1980, 23-02-1987, 15-10-1984, 01-12-1981, 13-10-1986, 13-10-1986 and 13-08-1986 respectively. Later, after their tenure as apprentice, they were engaged as Casual labours for a monthly salary of Rs.1,410/- and they were denied employment by the 1st respondent on 19-04-1990, 31-03-1990, 15-03-1990, 29-03-1990, 30-04-1990, 31-03-1990 and 01-04-1990 respectively. According to the petitioners, ...
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Master Plan Complex, Virudhunagar Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ273
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired vast extent of lands in Kooraikundu Village, Virudu Nagar Taluk and District, which are subject matter of these appeals for the construction of Armed Reserve Administrative Block and Quarters for Armed Reserve Men and Parade ground. Notification under Section.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 15.07.1987 and in Tamil Dailies on 08.05.1988. After due notices to all concerned, the award enquiry was conducted from 4.12.1989 to 27.2.1990. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Master Plan Complex, Virudu Nagar by Award No.1 of 1990 dated 7.5.1990, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.24,700/- per Hectare and awarded compensation on that basis. The respondents/land owners, being aggrieved by such fixation, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the learned counsel appearing for all the Claimants and the Governme...
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN264(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The questions which are referred in these two tax cases are as follows :T.C. No. 695 of 1996 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid under section 220(2) of the Act is not an allowable deduction against the profit of the company 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proportionate amount of cash compensatory support on exports attributable to the new industrial undertaking did not qualify for the relief under section 80HH 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity paid to directors is to be included in remuneration for the purpose of computing expenditure under section 40C ?'T. C. No. 696 of 1996 :'4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income and sale proceeds of proces...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »