Chennai Court May 2005 Judgments
Binny Limited Vs. the Acwt, Jt. Cwt, Special Range Vi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR179(Chennai)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and most of the issues involved are common. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. Therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows :- i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? ii) Whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act? (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cwt, Central Circle Ii(4)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)96ITD500(Chennai)
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue and most of the issues involved are common. Therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.Before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. Therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? (ii) Whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act? (i) Whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Narayanan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC582; (2005)3MLJ210; [2005]62SCL586(Mad)
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. A license is applied for and is under the process of being considered. The writ petitioner files what is said to be a 'Public Interest Litigation' and prays for a mandamus to reject the application. The question boils down to whether such a prayer can be granted.2. Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application of the sixth respondent for the grant of Direct To Home (DTH) License should be rejected since it would violate Articles 38 and 39-C of the Constitution of India, and since the rule of law is not being followed in the processing of the said application, and in view of the presence of the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, who is the brother of Mr. Kalanidhi Maran, who is at the helm of the SUN TV Network of Companies, there is every chance of there being undue influence in the processing of the application, the entire process is vitiated by mala fides and bias and since there is immine...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)483
1. This appeal of the assessee relates to block assessment period 1st April, 1986 to 15th May, 1996. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the AO in the block assessment. During the course of hearing, Mr. Banusekar, the learned Representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has filed an application to receive additional evidence and also seeking the permission of the Tribunal to raise additional ground of appeal According to the learned Representative, this appeal being the first appeal arising out of the order of the AO and the assessee could not produce the said evidence before the AO beyond his control, therefore, he submitted that the additional evidence may be admitted for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The learned Representative for the assessee further submitted that the additional ground is also arising out of the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee may be permitted to raise the additional ground of appeal.2. Mr. K. Srinivasan, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Mehra Vs. Bindiya Hillary Mehra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC512; (2005)3MLJ256
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The husband is the revision petitioner and the respondent is the wife. The revision is filed challenging the correctness of the maintenance amount ordered to the respondent payable by her husband, the revision petitioner in I.A. No. 1405 of 2001 in O.P. No. 1327 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, as per order dated 30.4.2004.2. The revision petitioner filed the main O.P. No. 1327 of 2001 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition was filed in August, 2001. The main O.P. was resisted in the counter filed by the respondent, the wife in August, 2002.3. During the pendency of the main O.P., the respondent/wife filed the petition I.A. No. 1405 of 2001 on 15.10.2001 claiming maintenance of Rs. 6,500 per month, besides Rs. 25,000 towards medical expenses and Rs. 25,000 towards litigation expenses.4. The Family Court considering the objections rais...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer, Ward-i(1), Vs. Kanchipuram Silk Handloom
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT446(Chennai)
These appeals by the revenue are directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the above assessment years on the solitary ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to grant deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-Tax Act, in respect of the interest received by the assessee from monies advanced to its members.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a co-operative marketing society which has claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act on the interest received from its members. The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the society is engaged in marketing of finished goods of the assessee/members and the assessee is not a credit society. The assessee has advanced money against finished goods manufactured by its members and interest was received on such advance which is incidental to the main marketing activities of the assessee. How...
Tag this Judgment!Tamilnadu Leather Tanners Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Chennai)1138
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Director of IT (Exemptions), Chennai, passed under Section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961.2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the question as to whether the Director of IT (Exemptions), Chennai, was correct in allowing registration to the assessee w.e.f. 13th March, 2000 and not since its inception.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. The assessee is an association.It filed an application in form No. 10A on 21st March, 1994 before the Director of IT (Exemptions), Chennai. On a perusal of the memorandum and bye-laws of the association, it was found that the association was formed for the purpose of protection of interests of the traders and business associates who were its members. This was not construed to be a charitable activity. As such registration was denied to the assessee.4. Thereafter assessee got its objects modified by a res...
Tag this Judgment!Sri V. Elengovan, Prop. Snqs Vs. the Dy. C.i.T., Special Inv.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR86(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the assessee for Assessment Year 1978-79 arises out of the order of CIT(A)-X, Chennai.2. The only issue involved in grounds of appeal relates to allowability of deduction Under Section 80-O of the I.T. Act, 1961. The facts of the case as emerge out from the material on record are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s SNQS International, Tirupur. He is a foreign exchange earner by rendering services to foreign buyers of hosiery goods. For A.Y. 1997-98, the assessee received commission on which deduction Under Section 80-0 @ 50% amounting to Rs. 44, 83,074/- was claimed. Before assessing officer, the assessee vide his letter dated Nil explained the nature of work done as under: (a) Sourcing: "In locating suitable sources for our international clients depending upon their requirements for exp. If a client from UK is interested in buying knitted garments we help them by locating suitable and reputed manufacturers of like products in Tirupur". (b) Negotiating: "We help i...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: May-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Chennai)738
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XIII, Chennai and relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97. The first issue relates to the tax treatment of incentive received by the assessee from the underwriter on the purchase of TNPL shares.2. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of materials placed before us and precedents relied upon. Para 14 of Schedule 24 on p. 36 of Notes annexed to and forming part of balance sheet and P&L a/c is reproduced here as under : During the year, the company subscribed to the public issue of M/s TNPL and was allowed 7,00,000 equity shares. The company has received brokerage amounting to Rs. 11,55,000 for subscribing to these shares which has been adjusted to the cost. Out of 7,00,000 shares, the company sold 2,00,000 shares and earned a net profit of Rs. 25,47,500. The Government of Tamil Nadu's permission for investment as well as sale of the shares are awaited. On 25th Jan., 1996, the company received the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C. Gomathi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC97; (2005)3MLJ59
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a Mandamus to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to register a case on the basis of the representations made by the petitioner to the second respondent on 22.9.2003 and subsequent representations dated 9.12.2003, 5.1.2004, 19.1.2004, 30.7.2004, 11.11.2004, 27.11.2004 and 29.11.2004 to various authorities with copies to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and to investigate the case and to submit a report to this Court within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.2. The petitioner is a Doctor in the service of the State Government. Having regard to the nature of the prayer in the writ petition, namely, to entrust the complaint for investigation by C.B.I. and the nature of the relief which is being finally granted under this order, I do not propose to deal in a detailed manner, the pleadings, arguments, materials and various rulings submitted by both sides. I propose to restrict only to a gist of the plea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »