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.
Dr. R. Jayachandran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR683(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The reference is at the instance of the assessee who has not appeared before us in person or through counsel. No arguments have been addressed in support of the reference.2. The question referred is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 32AB on the ground that he was not doing the eligible business or carrying on profession but the firm was carrying on the eligible business and hence was allowed deduction under Section 32AB.3. Having perused the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any error therein. The deduction having been granted to the assessee who was carrying on eligible business, the claim for deduction once again by the partners of the business for their respective shares cannot be granted.4. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee....
Prof. G.S. Ramaswamy Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR442(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee who is a Professor and author of a book titled 'Design and Construction of Concrete Shell Roof'. The assessee had served as a Director of Structural Engineering Research Centre. The assessment years are 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. For the assessment year 1984-85 two questions have been referred. They are, 1.Whether, the Tribunal was correct on the facts and in law in its interpretation of the declarations of the assessee's karta dated 03.01.1967 and 22.12.1970? 2.Whether, the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was justified in disallowing the expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of the publication of the revised edition of the book 'Design and Construction of Concrete Shell Roofs'? The assessee had, several years prior to this assessment year, in the year 1967 on 03.01.1967, made a declaration that he had thrown into the hotchpot of the Hindu Undivided Family c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Menon Impex P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)40; [2003]259ITR403(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest income derived by the assessee from funds in connection with letter of credit is income derived from the profits of the business of the industrial undertaking so as to be entitled to get the benefit of Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'.2. The assessee had set up a new industrial undertaking in Kandla Free Trade zone for the manufacture of light engineering goods. The goods therein were exported during the assessment year 1985-86. In the course of the business of that industrial undertaking, the assessee was required to open letters of credit with banks who had as a condition for issuing such letter required the assessee to make deposits. On those deposits, the assessee earned interest.3. The assessee's claim for treating that amount of interest income as income derived from the newly set up indus...
N. Muthukrishnan, S/O. Nagappan Vs. D. Pushpam, W/O. G. Dhanaraj and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ737
ORDER1. In the G.O., first read above, the Government permitted the plying of 100 five seater autos (VIKRAM) in Chennai City manufactured by Scooters India Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai in his letter third read above has recommended that 50 more permits for five seater autos may be given to each Regional Transport Officer, in Chennai and 50 each for district headquarters considering the public need. The Commissioner of Police has also agreed to the proposal of the Transport Commissioner. 2. The Government have examined the proposal of Transport Commissioner. They consider that as far as Chennai city is concerned, it would be sufficient if another 100 five seater autos are permitted instead of permitting 50 additional autos for each Regional Transport Office in Chennai City. However, in respect of district headquarters, 50 five seater autos can be permitted as recommended by Transport Commissioner. Accordingly, the Government direct that ...
S.P. Mohan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)418
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The vehicle in question was alleged to have been used for the offences under Sections 147 and 366 IPC. After investigation and seizure of the vehicle involved in this case from P.W.10 Shanmugam, a chargesheet was filed against accused persons for the said offences, namely, 147 and 366 IPC, alleging that the accused kidnapped one Saritha, P.W.1. During the course of trial, all the important witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the accused were acquitted. P.W.10, who was said to be the owner of the vehicle, also turned hostile, since he did not claim the vehicle in question. Hence, the trial Court ordered confiscation of the vehicle to the State, while acquitting the accused.2. S.P.Mohan, appellant herein, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, has filed this appeal, challenging the confiscation on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle and, as such, the vehicle should be released to him. According to him, the original owner of the vehicle Shanmugam, P...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR93(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment years are 1984-85 to 1988-89. The question referred in these tax cases is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rental for the mere letting of godowns received by the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Income from business' and not 'property' ?'2. The assessee had, during these years, received income by way of rent from the Food Corporation of India, which had taken the warehouses belonging to the assessee on lease. Though the assessee had claimed that such income be treated' as its business income and not as income from house property, the Assessing Officer treated the rental income as income from house property and completed the assessment accordingly. On appeal, the appellate authority, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1962]44ITR362(SC) , held that the rental income should be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)398; [2003]260ITR476(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us which is common for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 which question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, having held that the commission received by the assessee from Kunal Engineering Company Limited apart from his regular salary income would form part of his salary income, was right in holding that only the net commission claimed by the assessee, after deduction of various expenses, such as canvassing, salary, travelling, telephone, postage, etc., expenses and depreciation on car should be assessed to tax as the assessee's income from salary ?'2. The assessee during these years was working as the regional sales organiser of Kunal Engineering Company Limited. Besides salary paid to him he was also given sales commission which was on volume of sales effected by him. The assessee claimed that the expenses incurred by h...
S.V. Kumaragurupasamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)227; [2003]260ITR127(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1982-83. The questions referred are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming that the entire transaction by the petitioner is a sham or device 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the device encompasses the goodwill amounting to Rs. 2,72,500 also ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. He was one of the partners in a firm, styled as 'Sakthi Velu Poly Pack', which fin n had come into existence under a deeddated October 12, 1970. That firm was dissolved on April 1, 1980, the assessee taking over all the assets and liabilities of the firm and taking over its business as a going concern. The firm which was so dissolved had made profits during the three years preceding the date of dissolution. The goodwill was not taken into account while drawing up ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›