Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Ganga Medical Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR286(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us are :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting Section 154 petition in spite of the background that Section 154 petition was filed against Section 143(1) intimation ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging maximum marginal rate of tax in spite of income under the head 'Business' was loss ?' 2. The assessment years are 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessee is a trust. It carries on a business in which it incurred loss. However, it had income from other activities. The Assessing Officer imposed the maximum marginal rate of tax of the total income on the ground that the assessee was engaged in business. The assessee sought for rectification of the order on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. A.S. Nizar Ahmed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR244(Mad)
R. 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 letters fr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnaswamy Picture Trust, by G. Pakkirisamy Vs. Nathaswaram Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ611
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:-The plaintiff Trust filed a suit to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the property and to pay future mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. The suit property originally belonged to Subba Pillai and he died leaving behind his only son Ramasamy Pillai. The said Ramasamy Pillai had three sons, namely, Rajagopala Pillai, Govindasamy Pillai and Mahadeva Pillai. Ramasamy Pillai and his sons divided their joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 11.06.1919. Govindasamy Pillai is the father of the plaintiff. Rajagopala Pillai executed a registered Will while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind on 02.07.1956. Rajagopala Pillai and Mahadeva Pillai died without any issues; but Rajagopala Pillai was treating one Balasubramaniam as his foster son. By the Will dated 02.07.1956, Rajagopala Pillai gave prop...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)124; [2003]261ITR307(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Court is as follows:-' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the book profits for the purpose of Section 115J of the Income Tax Act is to be computed after deducting the extra shift allowance relating to the earlier years and giving effect to cl.(iv) of Explanation to Sec. 115J ?'The assessment year is 1990-91.2. The assessee is a public limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91, a sum of Rs.1,65,72,468/- was debited in the accounts in accordance with Sections 265 and 350 of the Companies Act relating to extra/multiple shift allowance on certain machineries, which were not claimed in the earlier years. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the allowance for the period not related to the accounting year were not allowable and therefore recomputed the profi...
Tag this Judgment!TuticorIn Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR291(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1990-91. The questions are : 'I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the action of the lower authorities in denying the deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act on the provision for Rs. 8,50,000 created towards breach of certain export obligation based on director's order dated November 20, 1989 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the replacement expenditure on certain machines as on the capital field and not on the revenue field ?' 2. Regarding the first question, the finding of the Tribunal is that the amount claimed does not relate to the current assessment year. On this ground alone, the question is answered against the assessee, as there is nothing to show that the amounts related to this year. All the authorities have uniformly hel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. P. Vijayakumar Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)451
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue, are as follows :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the gift-tax assessment holding that there was no gift involved in the reduction of share to the existing partner on the induction of new partners to the firm ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fresh capital brought in by the new partners on their agreeing to work for the firm and to share not only the profits but also the losses of the firm would constitute adequate consideration for the assessee's relinquishment of his share in the profit and loss of the firm ?The assessment year is 1986-87.2. The assessee was a partner of the firm M/s Apex Agencies, along with his sister. The firm was reconstituted.After such reconstitution the assessee's share in the firm was reduced from 15 per cent to...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Ranganathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC282; 2003(156)ELT457(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. R. Sudhakar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Additional Solicitor General for M/s. S. Udayakumar AGP for the respondents, the court made the following order.2. This is a petition to direct respondents 1 to 6 to pay the interim reward as awarded by the learned Single Judge.3. The amount of goods seized is nearly Rs. 3 crores, and the reward which is claimed may even run as Rs. 30 lakhs.4. Having heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants Central Government and Mr. R. Sudhakar, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and balance of convenience, we direct the sixth respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to the writ petitioner, namely Mr. R.K. Ranganathan, on his furnishing a...
Tag this Judgment!D. Karuppiah Vs. the Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC208
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The Petitioner is the father of the detenu Ganesan and he challenges the order of detention dated 23.2.2002 passed by the first respondent detaining his son Ganesan under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 after he was identified as a 'Goonda' since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities in five adverse cases and that he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is let to remain at large, he will indulge in such further activities and that therefore there is a compelling necessity to detain him.2. We are not extracting in details of the grounds of detention since both sides have agreed that the above Habeas Corpus Petition has to be considered and allowed on the following short ground.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is delay in considering the representation and therefore, the order of detention has to be set aside.4. We have heard the learned Additional Publi...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Railway Employees' Consumers Co-operative Stores Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ696Mad
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. The management of the Railway Employees' Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent - the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent. It had been alleged by the second respondent that he was working regularly, but temporarily under the present petitioner and suddenly he was orally asked not to come to the organisation for any work. In the objection filed before the appellate authority it was stated by the management that the second respondent was a casual worker and he had not worked for more than six months to enable him to approach the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The appellate authority accepting the case of the present second respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the 'oral dispensation of the service.' In this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!George Maijo and Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN783(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. The assessee is a firm consisting of five partners. The assessee with another firm, by name, M/s. George Maijo Associates formed a consortium and constituted a partnership firm, called M/s. United Exports. The United Exports is also a firm consisting of two partners, viz., Andrew G. Pattamana and Rita Joseph representing the assessee herein. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82 and the relevant previous year for the said assessment year ended on 30-6-1980. In the accounts of the consortium, United Exports for the year ending 30-6-1980 the assessee was debited with the share of expenditure incurred which included the cost of certain goods which was claimed to have been lost at high sea. The transaction relating to the loss of goods arose out of the import of P.V.C. Resin Suspension Grade. The United Exports entered into a C.I.F. (cost, insurance, freight) contract on 11-6-1979 with M/s. Palmex Enterprises, Singapore for the import of 8...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »