Chennai Court August 2002 Judgments
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)565
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is a co-operative sugar mill which had received subsidy from the State Government for putting up tenements for it's 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, the 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 appea...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR481(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question referred for our consideration is at the instance of the assessee and concerns the assessment year 1977-78.The initial assessment for that year was made on 20-2-1980. As the assessee had a grievance in respect of a portion of the order of assessment, it filed an appeal, which was allowed. While allowing the appeal, the entire order of assessment was set aside and certain directions were given to the assessing authority to redo the assessment. Thereafter, a fresh assessment came to be made on 2-2-1983. That order of assessment was later revised and the revised order of assessment was made on 11-3-1985. The assessee did not have any grievance against the order of assessment, dated 11-3-1985, in which the assessing officer had taken the gross amount of the technical fees received by the assessee for the purpose of deduction under section 80-O. On 1-7-1985, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN44(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The assessment year is 1984-85. The question referred is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in disallowing Rs. 13,500 paid to one of the employees of the applicant's company as part of salary by invoking section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. This court in the case of Sundaram Clayton Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]239ITR416(Mad) has held, following the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. : [1996]219ITR644(SC) , that cash payment like house rent allowance paid to the employees should be treated as salary for the purpose of determining the ceiling, under section 40A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. In this case also, the amount paid to the employees is towards the house rent. As the question raised in this case is similar to the one referred to and considered in the decision of this court referred to earlier, the same needs to be answered in favour of the reve...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. P. Balammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN562(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 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 th...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. V.M. Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN60(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The matter in issue is 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 1B (rule 1D) of the Wealth Tax Rules 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 matters back to the Tribunal to re-do the valuation in accordance with rule 1B (rule 1D) of the Wealth Tax Rules. ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal (Died) and Subramaniam Vs. Muthu Gounder and Kolandai Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad24
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The first appellant is the mother of the second appellant and the respondents. The first appellant died pending the Second Appeal and the second appellant has been recognised as her legal heir for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.2. The suit property belongs to one Raja Mudaliar. The first appellant purchased it from Raja Mudaliar from and out of her savings and her Stridana funds on 2.9.47 under the registered Sale deed Ex.A2. Ever since that date only the first appellant has been in enjoyment of the suit property. The first appellant's husband died 15 years prior to the suit. The first respondent harassed the parents and in 1959 left the family. In 1960 he began troubling his parents for his share. Therefore, partition deed Ex.A3 dated 6.10.1960 was executed. At that time, the 2nd appellant and another brother Paramasivam were minors. Though the suit property belonged to the first appellant alone, against her will she was made to include it in the partition...
Tag this Judgment!Andi Ambalam Vs. Sevani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad320; (2002)3MLJ248
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The question is whether the finding that the suit promissory note is inadmissible in evidence, because of non-cancellation of adhesive stamp, can be sustained when there is no pleading to that effect nor any objection raised at the earliest stage. 2. The appellant lent money to the respondent and the suit promissory note was executed in evidence thereof. The respondent denied execution of the promissory note, as also the payment of consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit but the Appellate Court reversed it on a point that was not raised in the written statement and no issue was framed in that regard. 3. On the suit promissory note,in line with third respondent's left thumb impression, four stamps have been affixed and a line drawn there against with the words fPwy; brtdp mk;khs;/ Sevani Ammal is the respondent. According to the Appellate Court there is absolutely no proof to show that the stamps were affixed at the time of execution or that the cancellatio...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Rukmini Ammal Vs. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons Co., Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: II(2004)BC478; [2002]112CompCas383(Mad); (2002)3MLJ436
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The plaintiff, whose decree for recovery of Rs.17,590/- was reversed by the appellate Court on the ground that the 2nd defendant / 1st respondent is not liable to satisfy the suit claim, has filed the present second appeal.2. The two respondents had business transactions with each other. The 1st respondent was due to pay some amount to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued on 15.1.1987, a post-dated cheque bearing the date 28.2.1987, Ex.A2 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- drawn on Madurai Central Bank. The 2nd respondent endorsed it in favour of the appellant herein and received a cheque for Rs.14,520/-. This cheque was encashed by the 2nd respondent. When the appellant presented the cheque, Ex.A2, it was dis-honoured because the 1st respondent had issued instructions to stop payment. Notice of dis-honour was given and the suit was filed. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The 1st respondent claimed that on account of non-delivery of the goods, which...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sukumar Vs. S. Gopal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ647
K. Sampath, J. 1. The short point for consideration in the appeal is as to the scope of Ex.A-1, which is a settlement deed executed by one Seshachala Chetty, the grandfather of the plaintiff and the second defendant, and father of the first defendant. Under the said document, he gave absolute rights in favour of his wife and in case, during her life time she did not alienate or deal with the property, his grandsons through his two sons would have to take the property equally. The document further provided that in case the second son Gopal, who is the first defendant in the suit, had no issue whatsoever, he should be allowed to live in 123, Audiappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, for his life time and further the settle should allow her daughter Saraswathi to enjoy two rooms in any of the houses free of rent for her life time. 2. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaring that he is entitled to an undivided half share in the suit property bearing Door No.129, Audiappa Na...
Tag this Judgment!intel Corporation Vs. S. Ramanan Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC457(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Original Application No. 276 of 2002 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale machinery tools, cranes, hoists winches, gear boxes, brakes, industrial products under the name/mark INTEL or using the name as its trading style/trade name and/or e-mail address, website address and/or any other mark deceptively similar to the applicant's trademark INTEL which is likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of their goods and business as and for those of the applicant, pending disposal of the suit.2. The case in brief is as follows :- The applicant company on its own and through its subsidiaries is engaged worldwide in the business relating to the internet, electronics, computers and parts thereof including semi conductor devices, memory chips, microprocessors, Central Processing Units being commonly known as the brains o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »