Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
M. Meyyappan Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas450(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rule 11A of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking an order to relieve the petitioner of his liability in relation to the offence under Section 233B read with the Cost Audit (Report) Rules, 1968.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :According to the petitioner, he is the managing director of M/s. Kwality Spinning Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'company'). The company was incorporated as a private limited company on June 26, 1958, and has become a public limited company by virtue of the provisions of section 43A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, with effect from December 30, 1989. Under Section 233B of the Companies Act, it is provided for an audit of cost accounts in certain cases. The Central Government in exercise of their powers given under Section 233B(4) read with Section 27(1) and 642(1)(b) of the Companies Act, framed the Cost Audit (Report) Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Goenka (Decd. by L. Rs.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR229(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The first question is common to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. That question is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) having held that the law for the levy of the penalty is as it stood on the date when the penalty was imposed, that is as amended with effect from April 1, 1976.2. That question is required to be answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma : [1996]219ITR671(SC) , wherein, the apex court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976, by virtue of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274...
Tag this Judgment!C.S.R. Visalakshi Trust Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN225(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us for consideration at the instance of the revenue is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the dividend income earned by the assessee in respect of shares held by it in M/s. Varadhalakshmi Mills Ltd. was exempt from tax under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. During the assessment year it had received a sum of Rs. 4,500 as dividend from Varalakshmi Mills Ltd., and a sum of Rs. 15,000 as dividend from Anglo French Textiles Ltd. That income was assessed to tax by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that the funds of the Trust remained invested in those companies during the accounting year and that the trustees and their relatives had substantial interest in those companies. The appeal by the assessee to the Commissioner having proved unsuccessful it carried the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Varaprasada Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR489(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us for consideration under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of annuities purchased by the assessee from the Life Insurance Corporation in respect of remuneration received by him from different producers by paying a single premium insurance is includible in the net wealth of the assessee 2. The assessee is a film director. At his instance, the producers of various films purchased certain annuities in the Life Insurance Corporation, in respect of the remuneration payable to the assessee by paying single insurance premium. The assessee's claim that the market value of the annuities received by him was not includible in his net wealth was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer. Though the assessee was successful in his appeal to the Commissioner, the view of the Assessing Officer was restored on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue. 3. The annuities in this cas...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Goenka (Died) Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)343
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The first question is common to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. That question is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) having held that the law for the levy of the penalty is as it stood on the date and when the penalty was imposed, that is, as amended with effect from 1-4-1976.2. That question is required to be answered against the assessee, and in favour of the revenue in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma : [1996]219ITR671(SC) wherein, the Apex Court, held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on 31-3-1976, by virtue of the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 274 by the Taxation...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kuppuraj (Huf) and ors. Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR718(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether the Tribunal was right in having applied the proviso to section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in respect of a part of the property and not to the whole of it. The assessment year is 1981-82.2. The assessee owns a house property called 'Hawarden' at Thiruchy Road, Coimbatore. The property consists of 175 cents of land with built up area of 1,187 square metres. The assessees claimed the benefit of the proviso to section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessing authority while granting exemption under that provision, limited it to an extent of 88 cents out of the 175 cents, after expressing the view that that extent was the reasonable extent which could be regarded as the land appurtenant to the house. He thereafter estimated the value of the remaining 87 cents and calculated the same in the assessable wealth of the assessee. He relied upon the Town Planning Rules which stipulated, accor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.V.K. Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)187; [2002]258ITR90(Mad)
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The assessee sold a house property in question for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 during the assessment year 1984-85, the property having been obtained by him under a partition deed dated June 15, 1959, wherein the value of the said house had been shown as Rs. 20,000. The Income-tax Officer fixed the fair market value as on January 1, 1964 at Rs. 30,000 and the capital gains was arrived at Rs. 1,86,357. An appeal was preferred by the assessee contending that as on January 1, 1964, the value of the property should have been adopted at Rs. 1,80,000 and not as Rs. 30,000. He also filed a certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Madras, showing the value as Rs. 1,80,000 as on January 1, 1964. This plea was however, rejected by the Income-tax Officer, and on a further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal relying on the quantum of the municipal tax paid by the assessee as well as certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Madras, accepted the claim of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.R. Ganesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)42; [2003]259ITR174(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1981-82. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire sum of Rs. 2,28,907 being the vehicle tax demanded by the Regional Transport Office was an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1980-81 ?'2. The assessee was a bus operator during that assessment year and was plying buses between Madras and Nellore. In that year, he was served with a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 2,28,907 as the amount of motor vehicle tax due to the Andhra Pradesh Government. The assessee made a provision for the payment of the sum and claimed it as deduction, as the assessee was maintaining accounts on the mercantile basis. The assessee had also filed a writ petition in the High Court and had obtained an interim order of stay against the collection of the demand. However...
Tag this Judgment!P. Joseph Prabu Vs. the Estate Officer, C/O. Defence Estate Office, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ640
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Aggrieved by the notice dated 5.8.2002 vide Ref. No. EO/N/4/PVM/GC&St388;/121&122/7mc issued under Section 5-A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), requiring the petitioner to showcause personally on 22.8.2002 at 1130 hours why the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner in the public premises should not be removed, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the notice dated 5.8.2002 and to quash the same.2. According to Mr. Dulip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has not been heard before passing of the notice dated 5.8.2002 under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, proposing to remove alleged unauthorised constitution in the public premises; and when the Act contemplates the issue of notice to show cause against the order of eviction under Section 4 of the Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioner b...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Bajrang Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR448(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A in respect of dumpers used in the business of mining operation on contract ?'The assessment year is 1980-81.The assessee which owned dumpers was, during the relevant assessment year, using the same in terms of a contract for the purpose of mining, the contract being with the owner of the mine, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Ltd. The claim for investment allowance on those dumpers by the assessee was negatived by the assessing officer, but was allowed by the Commissioner and the Commissioner's order was upheld by the Tribunal. The Commissioner, in the course of his order, has referred to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and this is what the Commissioner has observed in relation to that circular :'I find...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »