Chennai Court July 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 - Ii Vs. Salzer Electronics Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR118(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The vexed substantial question of law, as raised by the Revenue, arises for consideration in these appeals is,Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for computation of profit under Section 80HHC, business profit should be adopted without taking into account unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier year under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The assessment years involved in these appeals are 1993-94 and 1994-95. The assessing officer, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95 under Section 143(1)(a), worked out the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in brevity 'the Act'), after deducting unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier year, by his assessment order dated 30.3.95. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (A...
Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR71(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J1. The assessee is the appellant and the appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dated 3.7.2006 made in ITA No. 1854/Mds/95, raising the substantial questions of law, viz.(a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the validity of prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act in respect of bonus provision of Rs. 33,35,984/-?(b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the scope of the powers of the respondent in making prima facie adjustment in the computation of taxable total income while passing the order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act?2.1. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The appellant filed its return on 24.11.1994 for the year ending on 31.3.1994 showing a loss of Rs. 4,52,09,221/- and in the tax audit report file in Form No. 3 CD with return of income, bonus of Rs. 33,35,994/- was provided for, which had not been paid till 23.9.1994. 2.2. Challenging the said adjustment and le...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR67(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Chennai in I.T.A. Nos. 172 and 175(Mds)/98 dated August 23, 2004, raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses for the issue of debenture is allowable as a deduction in full in the light of Section 35D of the Act?2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue now stated that the real issue involved in the appeals is, whether the expenses incurred for the issue of debenture is revenue expenditure or not and hence, redrafted the question which reads as under:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses for the issue of debenture is an allowable deduction as revenue expenditure?3. It is fairly stated that the issue stands cover...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vgp Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Mad)709; [2008]296ITR148(Mad); [2009]176TAXMAN273(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. 1. These appeals are filed under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai in W.T.A. Nos. 2/Mds/2000, 83/Mds/96, 84/Mds/96 and 146/Mds/95 dated 17.02.2006 raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer to invoke specific rules 3, 4 & 5 of Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act when the transaction of lease is between sister concerns, without giving the assessing officer the option of applying Rules 8 and 20, even if they are found to be relevant? 2. When the matter came up on 05.02.2007, notice was ordered by this Court returnable in two weeks. Private notice was also permitted. Inspite of the same, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 3. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is a Private ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Subramanian (Late)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR289(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in IT (SS)A Nos. 27/ Mds/2002 and 28/Mds/2002 dated August 14, 2006, for the block assessment period April 1, 1988, to September 9, 1998, raising the following common substantial questions of law:1. While computing the undisclosed income for the block period under Chapter XIV-B, whether deductions under Chapter VI-A to be allowed?2. While computing the undisclosed income for the block period, whether the amounts relating to the advance tax paid should be excluded even though return has not been filed?2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly stated that the first question stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments of this Court in the case of Anbu Textiles v. Asst. CIT : [2003]262ITR684(Mad) and in the case of Eastern Produce Co. v. ITO : [2006]286ITR353(Mad) , an...
M. Gopal Vs. P. Thangadurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC34
M. Chockalingam, J.1. An order of dismissal made by the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, in R.E.P. No. 60/2001 seeking attachment and sale of an immovable property pursuant to a decree in O.S. No. 213/98 is challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.2. It is not in controversy that a decree came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 213/98 filed by him on the strength of a promissory note. The case of the plaintiff even as per the pleadings was that the Suit Promissory Note was executed on 18.8.1996 by the first defendant. According to the petitioner, the Suit was filed during the life time of the first defendant, and a decree also came to be passed on 26.4.2001, and pending the Suit, the original borrower namely the first defendant, died in the year 2001, and the legal representatives, who are the wife and children, have been added as defendants 2 to 5 and, thus, a decree came to be passed against the defendants 2 to 5, a...
Cit Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR362(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'B', Chennai in I. T. A. Nos. 1763 and 1764(Mds)/2004 dated 7-6-2005, raising the following common substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computation of limitation to pass order of revision by the Commissioner under Section 263, the date of dispatch of the order had to be taken into account and setting aside the revision proceedings of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 2. The present tax cases are filed against a public sector undertaking. When the matter came up on 18-6-2007, standing counsel appearing for the revenue requested for adjournment to find out whether the revenue had obtained clearance from the High Powered Committee for prosecuting the present appeals. Hence the matter was adjourned ...
Cit Vs. G. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2007
Reported in: [2007]293ITR513(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C', Chennai in I. T. A. No. 831/Mds/2001, dated 25-9-2003. On 21-6-2004, this Court admittedthe appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80-O for the assessment year 1998-99, when the payment received from the foreign company was not in consideration for the use outside India of any patent, invention, design or trade mark ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income has been assessed under the head 'Salary' ignoring the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed that the income should be assessed under the head 'P...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›