Chennai Court June 2007 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. B. Amrithalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Mad)121; [2008]300ITR78(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B', Chennai, in ITA. Nos. 2043 and 2044/Mds/1996 dt. 24th Feb., 2002 raising the Mowing substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the switch over from valuation as per market price to cost price was correct, being a substitution of one method by another scientific method ?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was right in changing over the method of valuation, when it does not reflect the true picture of profits and gains ?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as under:The assessee is a dealer in shares. The relevant asst. yrs. are 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31st March, 1992 and 31st March, 1993, respectively. For the ...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax and the Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR645(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D' in W.T.A. Nos. 1500 & 1501(Mds)/1992 and G.T.A. No. 49(Mds)/1992 for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1984-85. On 03.03.2004, this Court admitted the appeals and formulated the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the assessee's net wealth after excluding the wealth of his wife, daughters-in-law and grand children attributable to the lottery winnings?ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the gift tax assessment order?2. The facts leading to the above substantial questions of law are as un...
Sundaram Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR535(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench - 'C' in I.T.A. No. 1375(Mds)/1999 dated 08.05.2001. On 14.06.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding in effect that the levy of interest under Section 201(1A) was not subject to any limitation2. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Private Limited Company. The relevant assessment year is 1985-86 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1985. The Return of income was filed on 25.10.1985 claiming a loss of Rs. 59,15,418/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act ('Act' in short) determining the total income at Rs. 18,93,880/- after making various additions and di...
N. Ramachandran Vs. E. Varadarajan and Yamunarani @ S. Ramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ993
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendant in the court below is the appellant. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition claiming 1/2 share in the suit property bearing Old No.2 New No.2/1 and 2/2 Sheruffudin Sehib Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-24. The suit was filed on the basis that V. Natesapillai was the Kartha of Hindu undivided family along with his two sons N. Ethirajan, the father of the first plaintiff and the defendant and the suit property according to the plaintiffs is the copartionary property. The second plaintiff is the wife of the said N. Ethirajan. After the death of Natesapillai who died on 05.01.1959 the coparcenary property devolved by survivorship upon the two sons stated above. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the father of the first plaintiff and the husband of the second plaintiff, namely, N. Ethirajan is stated to have executed a release deed on 30.12.1972 in respect of his right in the coparcenary property in favour of the defendant and the said release deed is con...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›