Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
P. Subramania Chettiar Vs. Tmt. Amirtham,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ718
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Subramania Chettiar, the defendant is the appellant herein.2. Tmt. Amirtham and her minor children, the respondents herein filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the appeal, while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal by the defendant/appellant. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: 'The suit house originally belonged to one Palaniandi Chettiar. He died leaving behind two sons Gopal and Nagappan. In the oral partition between the said Gopal and Nagappan, the suit house was allotted to Nagappan. The first plaintiff is the wife of the said Nagappan and other plaintiffs are their children. Nagappan died in 1976. The plaintiffs continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit house from then onwards for more than 25 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)49; [2002]258ITR658(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. They are :'1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a firm is liable to be assessed as a taxable entity under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a gift made under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act ?3. If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, whether it is exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act ?'The assessment year is 1978-79.2. The assessee, a firm, was initially constituted under a deed dated March 30, 1974. One of the partners retired on April 1, 1977. The firm was carrying on a business in money-lending and was also engaged in the export of coffee seeds. On May 2, 1977, a company with the name similar to that of the firm, viz., Ramesh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., was registered. Between May 2, 1977, and July 8, 1977, that company lent a sum of Rs. 64,66,650 to the firm. On July...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)167
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.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 by the...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Kumarappan Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN62(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.This reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee was served with notice regarding the pendency of this reference way back in the year 1994. The assessee did not appear in person or through counsel. Another notice was sent on 9-8-2002 and served on the assessee on 16-8-2002. Even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. There is no representation on his behalf.2. The question referred to us at the assessees instance are :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the applicant for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act read with section 6 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied by the applicant?'3. The assessment year is 1988-89. Counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!V.E. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN59(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.This reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee was served with notice regarding the pendency of this reference way back in the year 1994. The assessee did not appear in person or through counsel. Another notice was sent on 9-8-2002. Even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. There is no representation on his behalf.2. The question referred to us at the assessees instance is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant Hindu undivided family was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act?3. The assessment year is 1990-91. Counsel for the revenue submits that question similar to the one referred to above has already been considered and decided in the case of VE. Periannan v. CWT : [1999]240ITR723(Mad) . In that case it has been held that a Hindu undivided family is not entitled to the benefit of exemp...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.N. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN63(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.This reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee was served with notice regarding the pendency of this reference way back in the year 1994. The assessee did not appear in person or through counsel. Another notice was sent on 9-8-2002. Even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. There is no representation on his behalf.2. The questions referred to us at the assessees instance are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the applicant for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act read with section 6 of the Income Tax Act, was not satisfied by the applicant?'3. The assessment year is 1987-88. Counsel for the revenue submits tha...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Periakaruppan Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN57(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.This reference is at the instance of the assessee. Though, notice regarding the pendency of this reference was sent to the assessee in June 1994, the assessee did not appear either in person or through counsel. Another notice was sent on 9-8-2002. Even thereafter the assessee has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. There is no representation on his behalf.2. The question referred to us for consideration at the instance of the assessee is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant. Hindu undivided family was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?'3. The assessment year is 1990-91. Counsel for the revenue submits that question similar to the present one has already been considered and decided in the case of VE. Periannan v. CWT : [1999]240ITR723(Mad) . In that case it has been held that a Hindu undivided family is not entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!H. Md. Zaid (Minor, Represented by Father and Guardian H. Hussain) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR560(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 and having regard to the interpretation of the lease deed, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the valuation made by the Department in so far as it relates to the inclusion of reversionary value of the superstructure ?'The assessment years are 1983-84 to 1985-86.2. The assessee, along with others is a joint lessee of a valuable piece of land at Nos. 190 to 192, Mount Road, Madras. The terms of the lease are set out in lease deed dated November 16, 1978. Clause 3 of the document empowers the joint lessees to put up a building at their cost and in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Clause 5 recognises the joint lessees to be the owners of the superstructure and of the fixtures and fittings therein during the currency of the lease and further requires the joint lessees to pay wealth-tax for the superstructure.3. While valuing the building, the Asse...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kuppuraj and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)353; [2002]258ITR412(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1977-78. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that on the reconstitution of the firm, M.K. Krishna Chetty, by the deed dated September 6, 1976, there is a gift by each of the erstwhile partners (assessees) in favour of the incoming partner, Asoka Betelnut Co. Pvt. Ltd., attracting levy of tax as held by the Gift-tax Officer ?' 2. A firm which consisted of three partners was reconstituted on September 6, 1976, by admitting a company as the fourth partner and in which company the other three partners held substantial shares. The firm owned a running business as also valuable fixed assets in the form of buildings. The shares in the firm prior to its reconstitution among the three partners, who are the applicants, were 38 per cent.; 31 per cent. ; 31 per cent. After the reconstitution, the shares of each one of these three...
Tag this Judgment!Wilson Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)186; [2003]259ITR318(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in admitting the additional ground raised by the Revenue 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the investment allowance already allowed for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 was rightly withdrawn ?'2. The assessment years are 1978-79 to 1981-82.3. The assessee is a partnership firm, constituted under the deed dated July 24, 1978. It was subsequently dissolved on September 30, 1981, when, one V. J. John took over all the assets of the firm and continued the business thereafter as a proprietary concern. The investment allowance, which the assessee had claimed on machineries during these years and for which it had also created a reserve, was withdrawn in the proceedings initiated for rectification of the assessment orders already ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »