Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
A.R. Saravanan Vs. State Through Inspector of Police, Crime Branch Cid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1140
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 12 of 2001 charged for the offences under Sections 39(1), 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act and 484 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC has preferred this revision against the order of dismissal passed in his petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge by the trial court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally this petitioner and first Accused were partners under a partnership deed dated 08-11-1999, which was re-constituted on 01-04-1985. As per the reconstituted partnership deed, the 1st Accused is the Managing Partner, who has been looking after the business of Sundaram Theater at Madurai. The theater was leased out to the 3rd Accused on 01-06-1997. However, the 'C' Form licence of the cinema theater stands in the name of the 1st and 2nd Accused. On 08-11-1999, officials of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai inspected the service connection Nos. 50 and 51 installed in the theater where they fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Standard Printing Machinery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR268(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, for our consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fair market value of the closing stock as against the book value agreed upon by the partners should not be adopted when the firm was dissolved and dissolution accounts drawn up ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86.3. The assessee is a firm. Originally it consisted of four partners. On the death of one of them, Shri Sohanlal, in November, 1984, the firm was dissolved by a deed dated November 27, 1984. The remaining partners took over the business of the dissolved firm and continued the same in the same name and a fresh deed of partnership was entered into by them. While taking over the business of the dissolved firm, the new firm took over the closing stock as on the date of dissolution at the book value. The Assessing Officer considered such valuation to be u...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajan P.R. Vs. Assistant Director of Fisheries, Mettur Dam and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ686Mad
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated September 14, 2001, in O.A. No. 4287 of 1991 in and by which the Tribunal declined to set aside the charge-memo, dated September 13, 1991, issued to the petitioner.2. The brief facts which led to the filing of the above said O.A. were as under:The petitioner was deputed to work as Secretary of the Mettur Dam Fishermen Co-operative Society some time in the year 1980-82. He was relieved of the said post and was transferred back to the parent department on October 13, 1982. It is stated that an enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act was held in which it was reported that the petitioner along with the other employees of the society were held responsible for causing loss to the society to the tune of Rs. 1,31,372. Based on the said report, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice, dated February 9, 1984. It was followed by an order,...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramasamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)640; [2003]261ITR358(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is, as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the applicants-assessees from Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Hotels P. Ltd. during the previous year ended March 31, 1986, relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 constituted a revenue receipt assessable as income of the applicants.2. The assessees were partners in the firm, viz., K. Damodaraswamy Naidu and Brothers, which firm was carrying on business of running a chain ofhotels under the name Annapoorna and Gowrishankar in the city of Coimbatore. On July 5, 1984, the brothers formed a new company, viz., Sri Annapoorna Gowrishankar Hotels P. Limited. The business of the hotel was leased to the newly formed company on July 16, 1984, for a yearly rent exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs. On the same day, the company also entered into an agreement with the four brothers and it was styled as a deed of compensatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)552; [2003]259ITR746(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 law in holding that the development rebate reserve written back should not be reduced from the capital base under Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The assessment years are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The assessee which had a development rebate reserve transferred the amount in that reserve to the general reserve as the period for which the reserve was required to be maintained had come to an end. The Assessing Officer, as also the appellate authority did not accept the assessee's contention that while computing the capital base, under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the amount of development rebate reserve which is transferred to the general reserve was not to be deducted. The Tribunal on further appeal, agreed with the assessee and allowed the assessee's appeal.3. Rule...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)550
ORDERR. 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not competent to entertain the enhancement petition made by the Department?' The assessment year is 1981-82. 2. A draft assessment was made in respect of the assessee's income for this year in which the assessing Officer proposed the disallowance of the claim of the assessee for deduction of loss on sale of investment amounting to Rs.14,27,500/-. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to whom the draft assessment had been forwarded as required by Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, gave a direction to the assessing Officer under Section 144B(4) of the Act to allow the deduction as a short term capital loss. The assessment was, thereafter, made on 13.8.1984 allowing the deduction.3. The assessee appealed against the assessment in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Nizar Ahmed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)598
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income should not be excluded for the purpose of calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'The Assessment Years are 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. The assessee is a firm doing business in export of tanned and finished leather. It had obtained credit facilities from the overseas branch of the State Bank of India, Madras. The assessee had, in the same bank, made deposits to the tune of Rs.139.14 lakhs, on which it received interest at the rate of 10%. The assessee's claim that the interest received by it on those deposits should be treated as part of the income from business was negatived by the Assessing Officer as also by the Commissioner, but was upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee did not produce the letters from ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ennar Steel and Alloy (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)329
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred at the instance of the Revenue are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the expenses on management fees and lease rent were incurred before the commencement of production was right in directing the AO to allow the expenditure on a spread over basis on the same lines as in Section 35D (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure to be allowed on a spread over basis when there is no specific provision under the IT Act to allow such expenditure (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in applying the real income theory to allow the expenditure on management fees and lease rent incurred prior to the commencement of production ?' 2. The asst. yrs. are 1988-89 and 1989-90. The assessee is a company. After it has placed orders for the machinery required for the plan...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Nizar Ahmed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN1071(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the revenue, is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income should not be excluded for the purpose of calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment years are 1989-90 and 1990-91.2. The assessee is a firm doing business in export of tanned and finished leather. It had obtained credit facilities from the overseas branch of the State Bank of India, Madras. The assessee had, in the same bank, made deposits to the tune of Rs. 139.14 lakhs, on which it received interest at the rate of 10 per cent. The assessee's claim that the interest received by it on those deposits should be treated as part of the income from business was negatived by the assessing officer as also by the Commissioner, but was upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee did not produce the letter...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ennar Steel and Alloy (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR347(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal having held that the expenses on management fees and lease rent were incurred before the commencement of production was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure on a spread over basis on the same lines as in Section 35D ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure to be allowed on a spread over basis when there is no specific provision under the Income-tax Act to allow such expenditure ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in applying the real income theory to allow the expenditure on management fees and lease rent incurred prior to the commencement of production ?' 2. The assessment years are 1988-89 and 1989-90. The assessee is a company. After it ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »