Chennai Court December 2003 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)383; [2004]266ITR12(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee made a claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 17,49,889, which it had paid to its foreign collaborator in terms of the agreement which had been entered into between the parties on June 7, 1990. The payment was made during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94. That payment was for the purpose of obtaining transfer of technical know-how which comprised of technical information, as also drawings and licence. The sum so paid was the first of three instalments that were to be paid under the terms of that agreement.2. Though the foreign collaborator sent some technical information, that collaborator subsequently did not supply the drawings and thereafter reneged on the agreement. The assessee thereafter filed a suit against that collaborator, which was subsequently settled in a later assessment year, under which it received certain sums, which was about 60 per cent, of the amount that had been paid by the assessee.3. The assessee's claim...
S.G. Badrinath Vs. V. Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Mad161; (2004)1MLJ116
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner herein, who has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1279 of 1998 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of Rs. 29,64,000/-, with interest and costs, against the respondents herein.2. Respondent herein filed an application in I.A. No. 1071 of 2001 under Order 14, Rule 4 and Section 151 of CPC, praying to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the said Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit, as this Court, in C.R.P. No. 1513 of 1997, directed to decide the same.3. The trial Court, after affording an opportunity to the parties, allowed the petition, holding that it is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision.4. Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner agreed to purchase the property in Coimbatore and approach the first respondent herein at his Coimbatore office, paid the amount and entered into an a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nathan Mining Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: [2005]274ITR149(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends that notwithstanding the absence of the words 'cess or fee' in Section 43B(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment, which amendment was with effect from April 1, 1989, the section should be regarded as being applicable in respect of payment of cess and fees as well for the assessment year 1985-86 when that amendment was not on the statute book. The Tribunal having rejected that contention, the Revenue is in appeal.2. Prior to an amendment the relevant part of the section referred to, 'any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax or duty under any law for the time being in force'. After the amendment that provision reads :'43B(a). any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force.'3. Any doubt with regard to the imposition of burden on the taxpayer arising from any equivocal words used in the statute will have to be resolved by giving the benefi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coral Electronics (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)369; [2005]274ITR336(Mad)
S.R. Singharavelu, J. 1. The assessment years in these cases are 1983-84 and 1988-89. The question referred is whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the AO with respect to optional service charges collected by the assessee covering a period of two years.2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in television sets. In the previous year ending 31st March, 1983, and 31st March, 1988, corresponding to the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1988-89, respectively, the assessee had collected service charges, which were bifurcated into two items, one as pertaining to year and another pertaining to the subsequent assessment year and, therefore, excluded from consideration in determining the total income of year.3. The AO treated it as income and taxed the same. The Tribunal has held that it is not taxable income.4. Counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Shaik Mohamed Rowther Shipping Agencies (P) Ltd. : [2000]246ITR161...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.R. theatres and Industrial Concer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)63; [2005]272ITR177(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred is, ' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the immovable properties held as business assets cannot form part of the subject matter of wealth-tax?'The assessment years are 1985-85 to 1988-89.2. The assets referred to in the question are admittedly assets which fall within the scope of Section 40(3) of the Finance Act 1983. The ground on which the assessee contend that the value of the assets should not be taken into account for determining the assessee's liability is that these assets are held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. The assets are land and buildings. 3. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs . Varadharaja Theatres Pvt. Ltd. : [2001]250ITR523(Mad) held that the exemption granted to cinema houses with effect from 1.4.1989 by the Finance Act 1988 while computing the wealth of the closely held companies, which are subject to wealth tax...
The Controller of Examinations Pondicherry University Vs. S. Shyamala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1MLJ467
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1.This is a classic example where, though the unfortunate petitioner has succeeded in her writ petition, she would not get the real advantage of that judgment. 2. The first respondent herein namely S.Shyamala, though entered a medical college in July 2000, that college got its approval from the Medical Council of India only with effect from December 2000. In short, her training in the medical course and more particularly M.B.B.S Phase I started effectively in December 2000. She took her first examination therefore for M.B.B.S Phase I in December 2001. She failed in that examination in the subject of Physiology. She therefore appeared for the next examination which is in the nature of arrears examination in May 2002. In this examination also she was declared to have failed. But before the result came, there was an amendment to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. This amendment was published in the Government Gazette on 2.7.2002 and it came into force ...
G. Gengavarajan Vs. D. Manivel and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTC766
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. On 10.9.2002, the respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, invited tender for collection of parking fee at Chennai Moffusil Bus Stand, Koyambedu, by advertisements in the Newspapers. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs. The petitioner participated in the tender by complying with all the preliminary requirements and submitted the tender quoting Rs. 32,05,000 and the petitioner claims that he was declared as successful bidder. As there was delay in issuing orders, he requested the Secretary of the respondent to allot the work to him at the earliest, by his letter dated 16.10.2002. But to his surprise he found that the tender was cancelled on 25.10.2002 without any reason. According to him, the cancellation of the tender was without complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. The respondents re-invited tender by an advertisement in 'Dhina Bhoomi' on 26.10.2002 and the tender was opened on 13.11.200...
Cwt Vs. B.R. theatres and Industrial Concerns (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN371(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred is,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the immovable properties held as business assets cannot form part of the subject-matter of wealth-taxThe assessment years are 1984-85 to 1988-89.2. The assets referred to in the question are admittedly assets which fall within the scope of section 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983. The ground on which the assessee contend that the value of the assets should not be taken into account for determining the assessees liability is that these assets are held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. The assets are land and buildings.3. This court in the case of CWT v. Varadharaja Theatres (P) Ltd. : [2001]250ITR523(Mad) held that the exemption granted to cinema houses with effect from 1-4-1989 by the Finance Act, 1988 while computing the wealth of the closely held companies, which are subject to wealth-tax, was not retrospective and that i...
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Harpegon Workshop Trust Vs. Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)459; [2004]271ITR553(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question raised in these appeals by the assessee is as to whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption Under Section 5(1) of the WT Act.2. The assessee is a trust whose objects are set out in cl. 4A of the trust deed dt. 18th Dec, 1967, which reads thus :'4A. The objects of the Trust shall be :(i) To aid and assist in the development and maintenance of Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education and Sri Aurobindo Ashram or any other public trust for charitable purpose and to establish and/or take over and/or purchase and/or otherwise acquire and run and manage services and industries required for the purpose of Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education and/or Sri Aurobindo Ashram and/or departments connected therewith or any other public trust for charitable purpose.(ii) To organise, encourage, promote, spread and impart all kind of educations and/or aid and/or assist in imparting and/or contribute to Sri ...
Drivers Conductors Bus Service (P.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2003
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas431(Mad); (2004)1MLJ215; [2005]64SCL49(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. The Drivers Conductors Bus Service (P.) Limited, Erode, is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act. The said company was formed in the year 1967 with the object of operating stage carriage services in Erode town. There were four directors when the company was incorporated. The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by name Mr. S. Rasool (hereinafter called as the 'deponent'), was one of the directors on its formation. One Mr. S. Ramasamy was the managing director. One Mr. S. R. Subramaniam was one among the four directors. At the time of formation of the company, it had a permit to ply on the route from Erode bus stand to Bhavani bus stand in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-57-C-9000. Sometime during the year 1990, the then managing director, namely, Mr. S. Ramasamy resigned and on his resignation, his share was purchased by the son of the deponent as well the son of Mr. S. R. Subramaniam. The said S. R. Subrama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »