Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
Amarlal Kishandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)515; [2003]259ITR417(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee constructed a house commencing some time in the year 1971 and completed it in November, 1974. The assessee had disclosed in his books the amounts spent by him on that construction as Rs. 2,12,000. He subsequently disclosed a further sum of Rs. 60,000 as having been invested in such construction under the voluntary disclosure scheme.2. After the house was completed in the assessment year 1975-76, the Department assessed the value of that construction at Rs. 4,98,500. The difference between the amount disclosed by the assessee and the value as found by the Department was directed to be spread over during the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The amount of addition to be made each year came to Rs. 53,000.3. The assessee filed an appeal against that order of assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 and the appeal came to be allowed on April 26, 1982, in which the cost of construction was assessed at Rs. 4,48,000 instead of Rs. 4,98,500. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramnath Goenka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR26(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1980-81 and 1981-82. 2. The common 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 Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the business loss brought forward from earlier years should be set off towards the dividend income ?' 3. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authority had rejected the assessee's claim that the carried forward losses from the assessee's business should be set off against his dividend income during the assessment year as the dividends were derived from the shares which were held as stock-in-trade. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the carried forward losses of the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 were required to be set off against the income from dividend, to the extent of that income, as the shares were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. 4. Learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharlal Vs. R. Sundararajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC507
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Manoharlal, the appellant herein filed the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents 1 and 2. The case ended in acquittal. Hence, the appeal against the acquittal.2. The case of the complainant is as follows:'The complainant is running a finance company by name 'Anand Finance'. Sundararajan (A1), the first respondent herein is the Partner of the firm Sri Kalaivani Polymers (A2), the second respondent herein. On 27.7.1994, the first respondent on behalf of the second respondent received a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and issued a cheque dated 12.8.1994 for the said sum. On 12.9.1994, the cheque was presented. But, the same was returned on 16.9.1994 with the endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement'. On 29.9.1994, the lawyer notice was sent to the respondents demanding the cheque amount. After receipt of this notice, the respondent/accused sent a reply on 6.10.1994 (stating that the respondents are not liable to pay an...
Tag this Judgment!indira Phadke (Decd.) Vs. Typewriter and Office Appliances India (P) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR524(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. This matter arises under the Estate Duty Act. The question referred for consideration at the instance of the assessee is, 'whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there has been transfer attracting application of section 17 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'The deceased G.A. Phadke died on 26-5-1973. He was the managing director of Typewriter and Office Appliances India Private Limited which was a controlled company. While assessing his estate to duty under the Estate Duty Act, the assessing authority invoked section 17 of the Act and added a part of the value of the company to his estate by treating the remuneration of the deceased, the dividend received by him for three years, and other benefits received by him, such as commission and perquisites for three years, as benefits accruing to the deceased in that period, the accrual of which benefits resulted in the assets of the company determined in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ramnath Goenka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)340
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. The common 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 Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the business loss brought forward from earlier years should be set off towards the dividend income ?3. The assessing officer and the appellant authority had rejected the assessee's claim that the carried forward losses from the assessee's business should be set off against his dividend income during the assessment year as the dividends were derived from the shares which were held as stock-in-trade. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the carried forward loss of the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 were required to be set off against the income from dividend, to the extent of that income, as the shares were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade.4. Learned counsel for the reve...
Tag this Judgment!A. Murugesan, S/O Angamuthu Gounder, Karaiyanur, Kannandheri P.O., San ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ620
K. Sampath, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.505/85 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sangagiri, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his one half share in the suit properties. The defendants were his father Angamuthu and his sons through one Chinnathayee. 2. His case as set out in the plaint is as follows:The suit properties fell to the share of the first defendant in a partition dated 17-4-1973. The first defendant married the plaintiff's mother one Thailammal in 1935 as per custom in the community. The plaintiff and one Thankamma were born to them. Out of the income from the joint family properties, the first defendant constructed houses, dug up wells and purchased properties. The plaintiff was entitled to one half share in the suit properties. There were no debts to the family. The first defendant had an elder brother by name Sengoda Gounder. He died leaving behind two wives, Thaiyamuthammal and Chinnathayee. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Angammal, W/O. Kannusamy thevar, TuticorIn Vs. State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ806; I(2003)DMC15; (2002)3MLJ425
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department-first respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to her as compensation for the death of her daughter Parvathy.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to her, she has four daughters and her youngest daughter was Parvathy. The said Parvathy developed a relationship with one Karuppasamy who is a married man. Because of the relationship of Parvathy with the said Karappusamy, the latter's wife filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin Town-2nd respondent herein. Pursuant to the said complaint, her daughter was taken to the 2nd respondent Police Station for interrogation. Thereafter, she was informed that her daughter committed suicide in the bathroom of the 2nd respondent Police Station. Her daughter Parvathy was 29 years old and she was dependent on her. Her daughter had...
Tag this Judgment!Tube Investments of India Limited Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC238(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner, Tube Investments of India Ltd. as the name signifies, is engaged in the manufacture of tubes, though that is not the only product made by it. It also manufactures bicycles, parts, machinery, etc. It had, during the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-1985 and 1985-86 supplied exhaust pipes to Ashok Leyland Limited which is a manufacturer of trucks. The exhaust pipes which are made by the petitioner to the specification given by the buyer were to be fitted into the trucks after the buyer had carried out certain further processing operation which included block setting, welding/brazing of flanges and matching components at both ends, surface treatment and red oxide painting and assembly to the engine/chassis manufactured by the buyer. The petitioner paid taxes on exhaust pipe so supplied by it to Ashok Leyland as an item of declared goods falling under Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, more particularly, item 4, sub-...
Tag this Judgment!India Industrial Enterprises Vs. Best and Crompton Engg. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC357; [2004]121CompCas220(Mad); (2003)4CompLJ115(Mad); [2004]51SCL687(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner firm has filed the above company petition for winding up of the respondent's company under Section 433(a)(c), read with Sections 434 and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :2.1 According to the petitioner, they are the partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1956, and having office at Chennai-1. The respondent, Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a limited company. The main object of the company for which the company was established is to carry on among other business of alloy steel raw materials and other object set forth in the memorandum of association. The respondent company purchased alloy steel raw materials from the petitioner company through invoices,Invoice No. Date Amount11E/MDS/438 17-1-1992 2 9,086.1111E/MDS/528 9-3-1992 93,493.2511E/MDS/51 12-5-1992 93,640.052,1...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Singaram Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR694(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us arise out of the order of the Tribunal in an appeal under the Estate Duty Act, 1953.2. The duty was levied on the accountable person in respect of the estate of the late Smt. Jayalakshmi who died on December 21, 1976. She had during her lifetime acquired in terms of a settlement deed executed by her father on April 8, 1929, and a release deed executed by him in April, 1937, the right to collect for herself the rents and income from the property bearing 84, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Madras. The right given to the assessee was described in the release deed in which late Smt. Jayalakshmi is referred to as a releasee, in these terms :'. .. from this date the releasee shall be entitled to collect for herself the rents and income from the said properties as her own income. . . .'3. The right acquired by the deceased Smt. Jayalakshmi was, therefore, the right to receive the whole of the income from the property.4. The Assessing Offic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »