Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.N. Chari Rubber and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Wealt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Mad)483; [2003]260ITR164(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. They are,' 1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the Motor cars, land at Pallikaranai village and factory building at Avadi are includible in the net wealth of the appellant-company despite the fact that all of them were acquired out of own funds of the appellant company and such inclusion is against the intention of the legislature ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'Motor Cars' occuring in Section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983 leaves no ambiguity in interpretation and as such, motor cars forming part of plant and machinery in the block of assets for depreciation under Sec. 32 of the Income tax Act 1961 as part of the plant and machinery, should be construed as motor cars simpliciter as specified for the purpose of Section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983? 3. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the factor...
Pilot Pen Co. India (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR494(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred in these Tax Cases at the instance of the assessee is: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case there was jurisdiction to assess the company in liquidation for wealth-tax for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 unless and until the assessing authority established from the books that the assets exceed the liabilities in value?'The assessment years are 1984-85 to 1986-87. 2. The assessee company had been ordered to be wound up by the Court, but the winding-up proceedings were pending during the years of assessment. The company owned a very valuable property at 271, Anna Salai, Madras. It also had properties at Kathirvedu village. The building was valued at Rs.168.76 lakhs and land in the village at Rs.50.02 lakhs. The assessing officer, after rejecting the assessee's claim that companies in liquidation cannot be assessed for wealth tax, allowed all the liabilities shown in the statement which the assessee had filed along ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Abubucker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)558; [2003]259ITR507(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the advance (rental) received by the assessee from the company in which he is a shareholder cannot be termed as a deemed dividend for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and he is the managing director of Tip Top Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has substantial interest in that company. The assessee as an individual owns a property at No. 31, Stringers St., Madras. The company of which he is the managing director was using that premises as a godown prior to 1981 in which year the building was heavily damaged in a fire accident and, thereafter, the building had to be reconstructed. The assessee on December 11, 1981, leased out the ground floor of the building which he had reconstructed by then up to the ground floor to the company on a monthly rental of Rs. 1,500. In that agreement...
Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)509
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is,'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs Duty and Excise Duty actually paid and shown as current assets in the balance sheet and not charged to the Profit and Loss Account could be deducted under Section 43B in computing the income of the assessee?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride, rigid PVC pipes and fittings and other items. The assessee had, in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1984-85, imported materials required for the manufacture of the assessee's products. The assessee had paid import duty of Rs.35,09,826/-. According to the assessee the cost of the imported materials inclusive of duty was taken to the profit and loss account only on consumption basis. The balance of import duty of Rs.11,58,833/- paid on the raw materials held as closing stock, was taken into the balance sheet and shown ...
E.i.D. Parry (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)670; [2002]258ITR404(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1989-90. The questions referred are two and the reference is at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aggregate sum of Rs. 92,40,329 being interest received on IDBI bonds for a period of three years, was chargeable to tax in the assessment year 1989-90 instead of bringing to tax in the year to which it relates 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the compensation for termination of the selling agreement was taxable as revenue receipts ?' 2. The assessee had received interest on the deposit made by it in the Industrial Development Bank of India in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. The assessee received the discounted interest for the whole period by exercising an option that had been given to it. This court in the case of CIT v. A.R....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manoranjitham Thanga Maligai Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)673; [2003]260ITR143(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred 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 income of the trust carrying on business should be assessed only in the hands of the beneficiaries and not in the status of an association of persons as per the provisions of Section 161(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. 3. The assessee is a trust set up under a deed dated March 21, 1978. The trust carries on business, though the nature of the business is not set out anywhere in the record. The assessee claimed that income from that business should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries to the extent the assessment to be made on those beneficiaries and to the extent of their share in the income of the business. That claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer as also by the Commissioner. On further appeal, the Trib...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Titanium Equipment and Anode Manufactur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR487(Mad)
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 value of stock-in-trade leased out by the assessee with Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. and leased out dated November 26, 1979, should be treated as part of the capital employed for the purpose of computing relief under Section 80J of the Act ?'2. The assessee manufactures titanium substrate insoluble anodes which are used in the manufacture of caustic soda. The assessee had leased out plant and machinery of the value of Rs, 23,46,154 to Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. The lease of the machinery was for a period of ten years. The value of the machinery so leased was directed to be excluded from the computation of the capital of the assessee for working out the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act by the revisional order of the Commissioner though in the original assessment that sum had been included in the capital employed....
Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN648(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred at the instance of the assessee is,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs Duty and Excise Duty actually paid and shown as current assets in the balance sheet and not charged to the profit and loss account could be deducted under section 43B in computing the income of the assessee ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Poly Vinyl Chloride, rigid PVC pipes and fittings and other items. The assessee had, in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1984-85, imported materials required for the manufacture of the assessee's products. The assessee had paid import duty of Rs. 35,09,826. According to the assessee the cost of the imported materials inclusive of duty was taken to the profit and loss account only on consumption basis. The balance of import duty of Rs. 11,58,833 paid on the raw materials held as closing stock, was taken into the balance sheet and sho...
M. Ravi Vs. R. Vasanthakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ679
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.6.2002 in I.A.No.466 of 2002 in O.S.No.256 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur. 2. The respondent herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.256 of 2002 against the appellant/second defendant and 10 others for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,66,100/- along with interest and costs. The parties are referred to as shown in the plaint. The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, filed a petition under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the second defendant/the appellant herein to direct the second defendant to furnish sufficient security for the suit claim within the time that may be specified by the Court and in default, the petition mentioned property may be ordered to be attached before judgment by the Court. The Subordinate Judge's Court, Karur, by order dated 30.5.2002, directed the second defendant to furnish security for the suit amount on or before 10.6.2002 and ordered notice. The second ...
The Management of Kaleeswara Mills- a Unit, Coimbatore, Vs. the Presid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR822]; (2002)IIILLJ994Mad
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Six persons who were employed in various departments of Kaleeswara Mills, Coimbatore were tried on a charge of murder before the Additional Sessions Court Coimbatore. All of them were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 06.04.1985. The employer mill immediately thereafter issued notice to all of them to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service, the notice having been issued under the Standing Orders which empowers the employer to dismiss persons convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude without having to hold any domestic enquiry with regard to that conduct. Subsequently, all the six persons were dismissed on 25.04.1985. 2. Four of those six persons raised industrial disputes thereafter. An award came to be passed in those disputes by the Labour Court on 18.12.1999 in which the validity of the dismissal was upheld, but with a rider that, in the event of they being acquitted in appeal, they will be e...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »