Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
George Maijo and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)494; [2003]261ITR231(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. 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 800...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. D.B. Madan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)487; [2003]261ITR193(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1754(NT) of 1991, by order dated 25.3.1991, was pleased to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to state a case and refer the question of law set out in its judgment and the Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court has stated a case to this Court and referred the following question of law:-' Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure on the Air Travel of the assessee's wife was not incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of the business of the assessee and that the benefit derived by the wife would detract from the exclusiveness of the outlay, so as to render it ineligible as a deductible expenditure?'2. The assessee is an individual and he is a clearing and forwarding agent for U.S.S.R. lines of vessels. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 with the relevant prev...
Tag this Judgment!S. Palanivel Vs. Office of the Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Tran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ555Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Mr. G. Muniratnam, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents.2. Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in KK. No.67/N7/TNSTC/Express Division 1/2001 dated 8.5.2002 purporting to discharge the service of the petitioner with effects from 7.6.2002 and quash the same.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he joined the services of the first respondent Transport Corporation as a driver on 31.8.1989; that he was discharging his duties as the driver in route No.340-A in the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 32.N-0518 and while so, on 21.5.1995 at about 4.45 a.m., when he started his trip and driving his vehicle towards Chidambaram, an Omni bus bearing Registration No.TN07 T 0939, which was coming from the opposite side, collided against the bus driven by the petitioner, resulting in the two legs and the chest bones of the petitioner got injured an...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC358(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above writ petition is filed against the judgment dated 12.11.1999 made in Tax Case Revision No.3667 of 1997 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal.2. The point for consideration in the present case is, whether there is any inter-State sale in respect of the materials utilised in retreading and recapping of the tyres, which retreading activity commenced and was completed in the State of Tamil Nadu, in pursuance of a contract entered into outside the State by the petitioner with customers residing out side the State of Tamil Nadu.3. The facts, which form the basis for the dispute, are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). For the assessment year 1987-88, the first respondent, Assessing Authority brought to assessment 70 percent of the total receipts amoun...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bradford Trading Company (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)324; [2003]261ITR222(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Chennai. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', was incorporated as a private limited company on 15.2.1970 and its main object was to construct a multistorey Four Star Hotel at Chennai at Cathedral Road, later known as Edward Elliots Road. The assessee purchased a plot to achieve the object and also to put up a construction thereon. The paid up capital of the assessee company was Rs.10 lakhs contributed by one Abdul Aziz, the Chairman of the assessee company and five others. The assessee became heavily indebted to Indian Overseas Bank and the assessee was in need of further finance and also expertise to complete the construction of the hotel and to make it as a commercial venture. One A.M. Buhari was a hotelier in Chennai and he was approached by the Chairman of the assessee company to participate in the venture and take over the management of the h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR107(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, for our consideration is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Explanation (ii) to the second proviso to Section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that lease rent paid for guest house cannot be disallowed under Section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The rent paid by the assessee for the guest house maintained by it having been allowed by the Tribunal, although it had been disallowed by the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer, this reference has been made.3. Section 30 of the Act deals with rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for buildings used for the purpose of business or profession. That the guest house is used for the purpose of the business is not in dispute. Section 37 under the heading 'General', in Sub-section (4), as it stood during the rel...
Tag this Judgment!A. Pushparani Vs. the Commissioner of Police Greater and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC616; 2003(87)ECC43
ORDERA. Packiaraj, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been detained pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.5.2002 branding him as a 'Goonda'. Since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and in relation to the ground case dated 2.4.2002, the detaining authority felt that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence passed the impugned order.2. It is not necessary for us to incorporate the details of the grounds of detention, since no point is urged in relation to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and both the parties have agreed that the Habeas Corpus petition has to be considered on a short point.3. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife of the detenu sent a pre-detention representation dated 6.4.2002 to the detaining authority, stating that her husband has been taken into illegal cus...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Japan Lines Ltd. (Navix Lines Ltd.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR656(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, for our consideration, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that demurrage charges received by the assessee are not includible in the assessee's total income and accordingly in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee ?'2. The assessment years are 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1987-88.3. Subsequent to the date of the Tribunal's order the applicable provision of the Income-tax Act was amended by the Finance Act, 1997, with effect from April 1, 1976, thereby making the amended law applicable for these assessment years as well. Section 44B which is a special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in the case of non-residents, under the Explanation that was added by the Finance Act, 1997, expressly provides that demurrage charges or handling charges or any other amount of similar nature shall be regard...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. TuticorIn Alkali Chemicals and Fertiliz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR80(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 justified in its conclusion that commission and discounts on sales amounting to Rs. 9,15,115 should not be taken into account while considering the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86.3. The assessee-company is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of soda ash and ammonium chloride. It had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 9,15,115 in the relevant previous year towards commission and discounts on sales to its dealers. Its claim that that amount is outside the scope of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, inasmuch as commissions and discounts did not amount to sales promotion expense, was negatived by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, but was allowed by the Tribunal.4. The term 'sales promotion' is not to be confused with the sales actuall...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Bradford Trading Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN632(Mad)
ORDERN.V.Balasubramanian, J.This is reference at the instance of the Commissioner, Tamil Nadu III, Chennai. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', was incorporated as a private limited company on 15-2-1970 and its main object was to construct a multi-storey Four Star Hotel at Chennai at Cathedral Road, later known as Edward Elliots Road. The assessee purchased a plot to achieve the object and also to put up a construction thereon. The paid up capital of the assessee-company was Rs. 10 lakhs contributed by one Adbul Aziz, the Chairman of the assessee-company and five others. The assessee became heavily indebted to Indian Overseas Bank and the assessee was in need of further finance and also expertise to complete the construction of the hotel and to make it as a commercial venture. One A.M. Buhari was a hotelier in Chennai and he was approached by the Chairman of the assessee-company to participate in the venture and take over the management of the hotel. A.M. Buhari ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »