Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
Ennore Foundries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)496; [2003]259ITR414(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Three questions at the instance of the Revenue and one at the instance of the assessee arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the appeals preferred by the assessee, as also, by the Revenue which appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner in appeal with regard to the assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 are now before us.2. The first question referred at the instance of the Revenue is, as to whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the incremental cost by reason of foreign exchange fluctuation. That question has already been considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. : [2000]242ITR440(Mad) , wherein, it was held that the liability of the assessee during the previous year on account of the change in the rate of exchange was part of the actual cost of the machinery acquired from a foreign country, and the assessee was entitled to investmen...
Tag this Judgment!Tarapore and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)472; [2003]259ITR389(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the receipts from service charges are liable to be assessed as income from 'other sources' and not income from house property?'2. The assessee owned a plot known as 'Dhun building' at Mount Road, Madras, which had been let out and from which he realised rental income. The assessee also received certain sum from the tenants as service charges which were not regarded as part of rent, but as representing the value of the services provided by the assessee to his tenants. The assessee claimed that those service charges also should be assessed under the head 'income from house property'. It was not in dispute that it was only the amount of the rent received by the assessee which was taken into account for computing the annual value of the building for the purpose of levy of tax. 3. The amount realised b...
Tag this Judgment!Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)470
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The question referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no liability which has accrued or arisen on the part of the applicant for the asst. yr. 1983-84 for payment of local cess and surcharge on local cess under the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act for the applicant to claim deduction of these amounts as a liability ?'The asst. yr. is 1983-84.2. The Supreme Court in the decision District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. considered the cess and other taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992, which validated the ss. 115 and 116 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and the action taken and things done thereunder by providing that the said provisions fictionally must held to have been enacted by the Parliament and keeping those provisions alive till 4th April, 1991, and ultimately held that the said Act cannot be construed to have conferred right to make levy and collection of ce...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR573(Mad); [2002]125TAXMAN321(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The assessment year is 1983-84. The questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue are :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the terminal allowance under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the demolished building is Rs. 1,60,866 and not Rs, 1,10,867 as computed by the Income Tax Officer ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that only the actually realised value of the scrap and not the value of the scrap as such, which has to be taken into account in computing the terminal allowance ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company which had owned a building at the Jail Road Complex, Coimbatore. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,60,866 as loss on assets scrapped, that building having been demolished in the financial year preceding the assessment year. The assessee claimed that no mater...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Sadayandi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)486
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the status of the assessee should be as individual, and not of BOI.2. The admitted facts are that three persons Sadayandi Naicker, Kalatheeswara Gurukkal and Kanniappan had jointly purchased a lottery ticket of the U.P. State lottery which won the prize amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the Director of the Lottery on 18th May, 1982. While assessing the individuals separately of their share of the winnings, the ITO also made an assessment on the total amount on all three together in the status of BOI. On appeal, the CIT set aside the assessment in the status of BOI. The Tribunal, on further appeal, confirmed the order of the CIT.3. A fact situation similar to that in the present case was considered by this Court in the case of CIT v. A.U. Chandrasekharan and Ors., : [1998]229ITR406(Mad) wherein, it was held...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ansari, Vs. the Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ524
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader, take notice for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to G.O. Ms.No.261 dated 21.3.2002 and G.O. Ms.No.292 dated 3.4.2002 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 3. The averments of the writ petition are that the petitioners have been arrested by the police in connection with the bomb blast that had occurred on 14.2.1998 in and around the city of Coimbatore; that the cases relating to the bomb blast have been clubbed together by the third respondent and investigation was carried out by them; that in the year 2000, the third respondent filed the charge sheet and the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.2 of 2000 in the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore; that after a delay of 4 years, trial in S.C. No.2 of 2000 had commended on 7.3.2002 and the examinat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2002]2002ITR573(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for consideration at the instance of the Revenue is, '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 D. I. T. relief admissible to the assessee on the income derived from the foreign branch at Bangkok without reducing the deduction allowable under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'. The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The assessee is a bank which has a branch at Bangkok, the income from which is eligible for double taxation relief. Its claim that while working out that relief, the deduction allowed to the assessee under Section 35B ought not to have been taken into account was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner, however, allowed the claim by following an order which had been made for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The Tribunal having agreed with the Commissioner this reference is made at...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Co-operative Industria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR503]; (2002)IIILLJ988Mad
ORDER1. Petition is filed to issue for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in C.P.No.5 of 1992 dated 23.2.1995 and quash the same.2. Respondents 2 to 6 herein filed a claim petition in C.P.No.5 of 1992 under sec. 33C(2) before the first respondent Labour Court on the basis that they were entitled to salary as per the recommendations of IV and V pay commission and claimed arrears on that basis. The petitioner herein contested the case on the ground that it is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act which is not a Government Department. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 6 were originally paid consolidated wages and after implementation of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, salary was paid to them. The Labour Court allowed the claim by its order dated 23.2.1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Mrs. T. Kokilavani appearing for the petitioner su...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Narayanan Vs. Guruvayurappan Investments Rep. by Its Power Agent, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)267; I(2004)BC40
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. All these Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of through this common order, as the parties and the issues are one and the same.2. These cases have got a chequered history:'(a) V.S. Narayanan, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A3 in four private complaints filed by M/s. Guruvayurappan Investments Company, Madurai with an allegation that the four cheques issued by the accused company in which the petitioner is the whole-time Director-cum-Secretary, were dishonoured and the cheque amount was not paid. These complaints were filed on 1.7.1999 before the trial Court and taken on file in C.C.Nos.485 of 1999 to 488 of 1999. (b) After entering appearance, all the three accused including the petitioner filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.7008 to 7011 of 1999 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. on 3.11.1999 for discharge contending that the complaint is not valid. After hearing the counsel for parties, the trial Court dismissed the discharge applications on 10.1.2000. ...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR651(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of Rs.4,45,305/- as capital gains liable to tax arising out of the compensation amount received under the insurance policy on account of damage to the assessee's Sutton Tea Factory building by fire, is valid in law. The assessment year is 1976-77.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing tea. It had two factories, one situated in Sutton Estate and another in Katary Estate. On 23.6.1975, there was a fire accident in which the factory buildings and machinery installed in Sutton Tea factory premises were destroyed. The assets had been insured with two Insurance Companies who settled the assessee's claim for compensation in terms of the fire policy. The Company received a sum of Rs.16,84,225/- as compensation, of which, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- represented compensation for damage suffered...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »