Chennai Court October 2005 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pandian Hotels Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR446(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.353/Mds/2000, dated 11.03.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1989-90. The original assessment in the case of the assessee company was completed on 23.3.92 quantifying the total income at Rs. 17,80,020/-. This was appealed against and the assessment was revised giving effect to the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the revised total income was quantified at Rs. 9,39,070/-. The assessing officer noted that in the original assessment, claim under Section 80HHD of Rs. 5,92,979/- was allowed to the assessee, although, it had not filed the required certificate from the Chartered Accountant. As a consequence, the assessing officer found that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Thus to tax the above escaped income, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee filed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shri E. Udayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]284ITR511(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA.Nos.12& 13/Mds/2004, dated 07.03.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1997-98 and 1998-99. The assessee filed returns of wealth admitting the wealth of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/-. He owns 2.25 acres of agricultural land within the corporation of Tirunelveli and its value is Rs.78,75,000/-. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'The Act') on the ground that those lands are agricultural lands and construction of building thereon is not permissible under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The assessing officer found that the land has the potential to be used for non-agricultural purposes subject to prior permission from the concerned authorities. The assessing officer also found that a hospital building has been constructed on the adjacent land. Therefore the assessing officer...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)610; [2006]280ITR491(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA.Nos. 1864 & 1865/Mds/2000, dated 27.11.2001, the assessee has preferred the appeals and raised the following common substantial question of law:' Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in disallowing provisions for non-performing assets which was debited to profit and loss account?' 2. The assessee is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1998-99. The assessee engaged in the business of providing long term finance for infrastructure development, in the return for the assessment year 1998-99 , admitted a total income of Rs. 5,16,48,010/- which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act calling upon the assessee to show-cause as to why the provision for non-performing assets which is debited to profit and loss account should not be disallowed in view of Explanation ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR425(Mad); (2008)11VST193(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA. Nos. 696/Mds/1996 and2326/Mds/97, dated 8.11.2004, the Revenue has preferred the appeals and raised the following common substantial question of law:' Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax, excise duty, sales of raw materials, charges of miscellaneous income and commission does not form part of the turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s.80HHC?'2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved in the appeals are 1992-93 and 1993-94. The assessee claimed sales-tax, excise duty, sales of raw materials, charges of miscellaneous income, commission, etc. for availing the relief under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, but the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in the appeal by the assessee, directed the assessing officer to recompute the total income of the assessee and partly allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Trust for Restoration of Ecology and Environment Rep. by Its Trustee T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ72
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Trust for Restoration of Ecology and Environment, represented by its Trustee T.Murugavel, has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus giving suitable directions to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority, Chennai.2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondent-Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority to take all measures including preventive measures for cessation of all illegal activities including clearing and levelling of land, extraction and removal of sand, raising unauthorised structures, on the Elliots Beach, north of the Urur Olcott Kuppam and ensure compliance of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991 remediate the areas affected by the sand extraction and pass such...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Simpson and General Finance Co. Ltd. (N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-2005
Reported in: [2006]285ITR429(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in W.T.A. Nos. 27 and 163/Mds. of 1999, dated February 17, 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment years involved are 1995-96 and 1996*97. The assessee filed a return of wealth for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It was found that the value adopted for the property situate at Sembiam and Madhavaram was very low. The values were obtained from the District Valuation Officer, and the Assessing Officer, fixed the value based on the valuation officer's report.3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), contending that the Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the land under reference comes within the purview of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and that as on the date of valuation, the land should be valued only as per the compensation payable under the Act. The Commissioner of I...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-i Vs. H.H. (Late) Sri Raja Rajagopala Thond ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Mad)42
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA. No. 1526/Mds/1999, dated 14.2.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessment year involved is 1996-1997. The assessee is an ex-ruler of Pudukkottai Samasthanam. The assessment has been made on Rajagopala Thondaiman as legal representative of the deceased assessee H.H.Raja Rajagopala Thondaiman.3. The case of the revenue is that during the year of account, the assessee had sold his old Palace at Pudukkottai for a consideration of Rs. 17,76,020/- and claimed exemption on the sale proceeds. The Assessing Officer, on the ground that in the earlier years the claim of the assessee has not been accepted and that the matter is under appeal at different stages, brought the sum of Rs. 17,76,020/- to assessment as long term capital gains.4. The assessee, not satisfied with the assessment, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Easun Engineering Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR678(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in WTA No. 6/Mds/96, dated 15.3.2004.2. The Revenue is the appellant in the above appeal. The assessment year involved is 1988-1989.3. The assessee is the owner of the land at No. 476, Anna Salai, Chennai, to the extent of 24.5 grounds. The case of the revenue is that the assessee declared the value of the property in the Wealth-tax return for less than 70% of the value and hence the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of its assets by furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessing officer levied minimum penalty of Rs. 2,33,600/-. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who held that it is not the fit case to impose penalty and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order revenue approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. L.G. Balakrishnan and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Mad)173; [2006]281ITR37(Mad)
N. Kannadasan, J.1. The above appeal is filed as against the order dated 26.10.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; 'D' Bench, Chennai.2. The assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 27.3.1997. The company manufactures a wide range of products like automotive and industrial chains, several auto ancillary products etc. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had paid soleselling agency commission to the following persons as detailed below:-EMDI Asia (P) Ltd., Singapore Rs. 1,78,379/-EMDI Europe SA, Luxemborg Rs. 39,19,825/----------------Total Rs. 40,98,204/-===============The Assessing Officer found that in the earlier year M/s. EMDI was managed by a former employee and his wife. It has no infrastructure necessary to render the service. For reasons discussed in the assessment for the earlier year, the claim was disallowed.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Oficer, the assessee filed an app...
Tag this Judgment!Pushparaj, S/O. Maria Jebastian Vs. Somalingam, S/O. Natarajan Asari a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ354
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. These Civil Revisions are directed against the common order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the applications filed under Order 11, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioners.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revisions are as follows:The disputed property originally belonged to one Santhana Marian, the paternal grandfather of the present petitioner. Said Santhana Marian executed a Will bequeathing the disputed property in favour of his daughter-in-law Maria Soosai Ammal, the mother of the present petitioner. The said Maria Soosai Ammal had four sons and three daughters, including the petitioner. The Will had not been probated and no letters of administration had been obtained. On the death of the grandfather in the year 1962, the property devolved upon the father of the petitioner as the Will in question had not been probated. However, Respondent No. 1 in the present Civil Revision Petitions, had filed suit for speci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »