Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR627(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arises out of the order of the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restored the order of the Assessing Officer who had held that in computing the capital base for the purpose of surtax the credit balance in the profit and loss account is to be deducted, and that such balance cannot be treated as reserve. The assessment years are 1981-82 and 1982-83.2. The question referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the credit balance in the profit and loss account can be included on the part of the reserve for the purpose of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?'3. Learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]141ITR542(Cal) , wherein, it was held that the credit balance in the profit and loss account was a mass of undistributed ...
Tag this Judgment!Rpg Cellular Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Air Port)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(85)ECC316; 2003(151)ELT261(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to produce the documents sought for by the petitioner relating to similar/identical imports made by other telecom operators from the same foreign supplier and more specifically described in the petitioner's letter dated 14-12-1999. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Muralikumaran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The request of the writ petitioner has already been turned down while stating that in respect of one of the importers, the case has been settled under Samadhan scheme, but in respect of other two importers the respondent has not assigned any reason. Be that so, what the petitioner wants is to rely upon is the rate of import of identical instruments namely, Cell Phone, GSM Mobile Telephone Network Hardware Equipments (hardware and software) and what the petitioner see...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thakurdas Choithram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR340(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the amended Rule 5 which came into force on April 1, 1983, would be applicable to the assessment year 1983-84 also and the assessee would be entitled to the enhanced depreciation as provided in the said amended rules ?'2. The assessment year is 1983-84.3. It is well settled now that the law to be applied for the purpose of assessment is the law in force as on the first day of the assessment year. An amendment or modification subsequently made but which is not given retrospective effect will not affect the law to be applied and will not be applicable for that year's assessment proceedings.4. The depreciation on plant and machinery which was revised with effect from April 2, 1983, therefore, will not affect the applicability of the rates which prevailed as on April 1, 1983, for the assessment year 1983-84. The amendme...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. P. Balammal, Karur Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)147
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a reference under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One K. Periaswamy died on 28.8.1975. At the time of his death, he was a partner in a firm styled M/s Amarjothi Fabrics. Subsequent to the date of death of K. Periaswamy, the other partners of the firm disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 the stock valued at Rs.2,97,000/- and also paid tax on the said amount. The stocks so declared represented the concealed income of the firm and the proportionate tax liability of K. Periaswamy was deducted from his share of the income disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and necessary entries were also made in the account books of the firm. The accountable person in the estate duty proceedings of K. Periaswamy claimed that the proportionate amount of tax paid by the firm under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in relation to K.Periaswamy's share should also be taken into account in determining the principal value of the estate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Wilco and Company, Madras Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT49(Mad)
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the appellate order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated 20.12.1994 and also the consequential order dated 14.6.1995 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Cuddalore, calling upon the petitioner to pay a penalty amount of Rs.2,94,123/- towards short landing of quantity of 104.750 Metric Tonnes of urea. 2. According to the petitioner, on 20.7.1984 the vessel m.v.Northland arrived at Pondicherry to unload the cargo viz., urea in bags weighing 14,784,250 Metric Tonnes. It was alleged that there was short landing of 109.750 Metric Tonnes. The consignees of the goods were Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Madras. Action was initiated against the petitioner as agents under Section 148 of the Customs Act. Proceedings were also initiated under Section 116 of the Customs Act for levy of penalty. Show-cause notice was however, issued only in the year 1990 after a period of six...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR598(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a co-operative sugar mill which had received subsidy from the State Government for putting up tenements for its workers, during the assessment year 1979-80. In computing the income for that year, the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of the total cost of the asset. That claim was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment so made was later revised by the Commissioner by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner was of the view having regard to the definition of 'actual cost' in Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that depreciation on the cost of the asset to the assessee was required to be refused to the extent of the amount of subsidy as the subsidy, was given for meeting the cost of the construction.2. The assessee being aggrieved, appealed to the Tribunal unsuccessfully. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment order had merged in the order in an ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganesan Vs. S. Issac (Deceased),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad208; (2002)3MLJ471
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Ganesan, the plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn dismissed the same confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:'The suit property and the property at Kulamangalam village originally belonged to one James Chelliah. James Chelliah had two wives. The first wife is Arputham. Ganesan, the plaintiff married the daughter of one Janarthanam, the brother of Arputham, the first wife of James Chelliah. His second wife's name is Jesumani Ammal. Issac and Devadasan, the defendants in the present suit are the brothers of the said Jesumani Ammal. On 25.3.1966 James Chelliah executed a Will bequeathing one half of his share to the plaintiff and allotting the other half to his second wife Jesumani Ammal. He died on 16....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)190; [2002]258ITR494(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee has not concealed its income and that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not exigible for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 especially when the assessee had not maintained the accounts year after year and the income has been grossly understated?'2. The assessee during the relevant assessment years was plying buses. She had not maintained accounts but had submitted returns in which she estimated income from six buses at Rs. 12,000 per bus. The assessee was asked to furnish various details such as the number of days on which the vehicles plied on the route; the tax paid for each of the vehicles, etc. It was found by the AO, with the particulars so furnished, that the income as estimated by the assessee was rather low. He noticed the assessee's explanation that the vehicles were old and that the routes we...
Tag this Judgment!K. Arumuga Mudaliar and Co. Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC141(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the stage of admission, we have heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes).2. It is pointed out that the relevant entry 'pens' in entry No. 65(1) in Part B of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, includes--according to the clarification issued by the Commissioner which clarification is binding on all his subordinates including assessing officers--'sketch pens' also. The assessment year is 1996-97.3. The assessee is admittedly a manufacturer of sketch pens. Though the assessee had contended before the Taxation Special Tribunal that the levy of tax on the turnover relevant to 'sketch pens' was not taxable, the Tribunal has without adverting to that aspect merely set aside the penalty, and has not said anything at all about the taxability of the item.4. Learned Special Government Advocate (Taxes) fairly states that the clarification in fact, has been issued by the Commissioner stating that 'pens' include 'sketch pens'....
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Mrs. Irmgard Velagapudi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN45(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. The matter in issue is with regard to valuation of shares in a private company. The Tribunal rendered its decision at a time when it did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) , in which it was held that rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 is the sole basis for determining the value of such shares.2. As the order of the Tribunal is not consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The valuation made by it is required to be modified to the extent required and to be in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania (supra).3. We, therefore, remit the matter back to the Tribunal to redo the valuation in accordance with rule 1D....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »