Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Manickam and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR349(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the interest charged under Section 139 and Section 215 for the assessment year 1974-75 ?'2. The assessee-firm is a manufacturer of cement pipes. It had returned an income of Rs. 2,000. The Assessing Officer proposed to fix the income at Rs. 6,90,100. In the assessment, the net income of the assessee was estimated at Rs. 1,00,000. Income-tax of Rs. 8,100 was levied thereon, interest ofRs. 14,560 was levied under Section 139(8) and of Rs. 4,218 was levied under Section 215. The assessee appealed against that order. The appellate authority, while upholding the income assessed by the Assessing Officer, set aside the levy of interest under Section 139(8) as also under Section 215. The appellate authority found that the est...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyar Consultant and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR250(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 was right in law in holding that the deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80HHC is nil ?'2. The assessment year is 1989-90.3. The assessee which is a financial consultant, had, during the assessment year, exported marine products in association with Devi Marine Foods Products Ltd. and claimed the benefit of Section 80HHC in respect of the total income received from that export. Though initially the assessee's right to make a claim under Section 80HHC had been negatived, the Tribunal having held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of that provision, a fresh assessment order was made. In that assessment made on May 28, 1992, the Assessing Officer held that the amount of deduction which the assessee could claim under Section 80HHC was nil, after making the computation in accordance with Section 80AB.4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Asbestos Cement Ltd. (Now Known as Ramco Industries Ltd.) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)516; [2003]259ITR631(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us, one at the instance of the assessee, and the other at the instance of the Revenue, The assessment years are 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88.2. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to a revenue deduction in respect of customs and excise duty component of the value of the closing stock?'3. The assessee is a manufacturer of cement, as also asbestos sheets. For the purpose of manufacturing asbestos sheets, the assessee imported asbestos fibre on which it paid customs duty. While a major portion of the quantity so imported was utilised in the manufacture of sheets in the relevant assessment years, at the end of each assessment year, there remained with the assessee some portion of the imported stock of asbestos fibre on which it had paid duty. While the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bajrang Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)143
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. 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 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1980-81. 3. 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 circu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Fiesta Restaurants Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)497
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee was served as long back as on 25th May, 1999, as seen from the acknowledgement now produced before us by the counsel for the Revenue. The assessee has not appeared through counsel, and no representative has been made on behalf of the assessee.2. The reference before us is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1985-86. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on machineries installed in a restaurant ?'3. Learned counsel for the Revenue rightly brought to our notice the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd. v. CJT : [2000]241ITR279(Mad) wherein, it was held that the machinery installed in a restaurant for preparing food cannot be regarded as machinery installed for the purpose of manufacture or production of any article, as the preparation of foodstuff in the kitchen of the restaurant cannot be regarded as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. theatre Sri Rangaraja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)117; [2003]260ITR453(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment year is 1976-77. The following question has been referred to us for consideration at the instance of the Revenue: 'Whether, having regard to the Explanation to Section 49(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the fact that the asset became the property of Shri Sourirajulu on the distribution of assets on the dissolution of the firm within the meaning of Sub-section (1)(iii)(b) thereof, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh paid by the said Sri Sourirajulu at the time of taking over the business as proprietary business would form part of the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing the capital gains in this case ?'2. Theatre Sri Rangaraja, Palani, was originally owned by a firm consisting of twelve partners, of which Sourirajulu was one. On March 30, 1971, there was a reconstitution of the firm and the number of partners continuing were only two out of the original twelve. One of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR167(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 13A are not applicable to the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?'2. Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes a special provision relating to incomes of political parties. That provision was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978, with effect from 1-4-1979. That provision reads as under :'13A. Any income of a political party which is chargeable under the head Income from house property or Income from other sources or any income by way of voluntary contributions, received by a political party from any person shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of such political party :Provided that (a) such political party keeps and maintains such books of account and other documents as would enable the assessing officer to properly deduce its income therefrom;...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyar Consultant and Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)475
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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction admissible to assessee under section 80HHC is nil ?' The assessment year is 1989-90.2. The assessee which is a financial consultant, had, during the assessment year, exported marine products in association with M/s. Devi Marine Foods Products Ltd. and claimed the benefit of section 80HHC in respect of total income received from that export. Though initially the assessee's right to make a claim under section 80HHC had been negatived, the Tribunal having held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of that provision, a fresh assessment order was made. In that assessment made on 28-5-1992, the assessing officer held that the amount of deduction which the assessee could claim under section 80HHC was nil, after making the computation in accordance with section 80AB.3. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Felix Vs. Jemi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC430
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful 3rd defendant in both the courts below is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Chelladurai and entitled to collect all the terminal benefits and for permanent injunction. The first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born to the 1st plaintiff and Chelladurai. Their marriage took place on 25.08.1962 as per the custom prevailing in the Christian community and he died on 19.09.1989. The deceased was employed as a Male Nurse Orderly in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tuticorin. He was having illicit intimacy with the 3rd defendant. Now, the 3rd defendant proclaims herself as the wife of the deceased and attempting to claim the terminal benefits payable by defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the suit.The 3rd defendant resisted the suit and contended that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the deceased was...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padmavathy Ramachandran Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)499
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of the meaning of the term 'issue' in Section 27 of the ED Act, 1953.2. The matter concerns the estate of one A.P. Ramachandra, who died on 23rd May, 1960. A month prior to his demise, he had sold certain agricultural lands, to the sons of his brothers, such sale having been effected on 18th April, 1960. While making the assessment to the estate duty, the Asstt. Controller proposed to treat the sales as gifts by invoking Section 27(1) of the Act and regarding the brother's sons of the deceased as relatives for the purposes of that section. To that proposal, a note was submitted by the authorised representative of the accountable person in which it was pointed, out that brother's sons were not relatives for the purpose of Section 27 of the Act, as that section defines 'relative' in Sub-section (7) and the definition therein does n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »