Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: agricultural income tax act 1957 section 19a omitted Court: chennai Page 15 of about 156 results (0.283 seconds)

V. Annamalai and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]242ITR411(Mad)

..... rejected. however, in that order it has also been observed that it is open to the petitioner to file a revision petition under section 54 of the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, if it is within time. that observation must be read subject to the law laid down by this court with regard to the maintainability of the revision petitions against ..... a full bench has held that an application for revision will not lie to this court against an order made by the commissioner under section 34 of the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, if that order is not one which can be regarded as prejudicial to the assessee. while so holding, the court took note of the second proviso to section ..... r. jayasimha babu, j.1. the revision petitions are directed against an order passed by the commissioner of agricultural income-tax under section 34 of the act. by that order, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as that order did not have the consequence of enhancing any liability of the petitioner or .....

S. Sadasivam Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1979]116ITR438(Mad)

..... ismail, j. 1. this is a revision petition under section 54(1) of the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, 1955, seeking to set aside the order of the commissioner of agrl. i. t., madras, dated 11th october, ..... on june 29, 1970, purported to pass an order recognising the partition under section 29(1) of the t.n. agrl. i. t. act, 1955, with effect from december 5, 1969, and also pointed out in the order that orders would be passed as huf at the hands of ..... in the names of the petitioner, his wife and daughter. the petitioner herein was being assessed on the basis of the composition of the tax up to the assessment year 1969-70 of the extent of 28.28 ordinary acres equivalent to 60.02 standard acres. during the assessment ..... accepting the partition will arise only in making an assessment under section 17 of the act and not in connection with the collection of tax on the basis of composition. section 29(1) of the act is clear and states :'where at the time of making an assessment under section .....

Kothari (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1988)74CTR(Mad)73; [1989]177ITR538(Mad)

..... section 17(3) of the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, 1955 (v of 1955) (hereinafter referred or as the act), suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent on april 18, 1977. that order of assessment was rectified pursuant to the powers reserved for the respondent under section 36(1) of the act, on february 25, 1980. that ..... respondent exercised the power of rectification over the order passed on february 25, 1980. section 36(1) of the act is unambiguous in its terms when it states that the power of rectification is available to the agricultural income-tax officer over an assessment order and that too within three years from the date of such order. we are not ..... has got to be resolved only in favour of the subject. if so done, i have to hold that the respondent had acted incompetently and without jurisdiction in invoking the powers under section 36(1) of the act to further rectify the order passed on february 25, 1980. in this view, the writ petition is allowed. no costs. .....

Valivalam Desikar High School Trust Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural I ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1981]131ITR84(Mad)

..... the extent of ac. 14.38 endowed under the subsequent deed dated april 1, 1969, and pass the orders of assessment under the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, 1955 (act 5 of 1955), hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. 2. on a perusal of the two deeds in question, it cannot be held that the trustee under the deed of 1959 and the school ..... under the deed of 1969 are one and the same person so as to warrant clubbing of the two extents for the purposes of assessment under the act. section 3(1) of the act speaks of charge of agrl. income-tax on the total agrl. income of the previous year of every person. the expression 'person' has been defined under s. 2(q) of the ..... act. so also the expression 'to hold' has been defined under s. 2(nn) of the act. a reading of these provisions clearly conveys to one's mind that .....

Thirumalaiswami and Two ors. Vs. Nallathambi (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2003(2)CTC526; (2003)2MLJ756

..... the care and protection of the joint family manager arukkani ammal and palanisamy gounder. karundevi gounder was lavishly and luxuriously spending without maintaining the plaintiffs. (ii) to avoid agricultural income tax and ceiling laws. insofar as the first ground is concerned, there is no serious dispute. on the other hand, it is admitted by d.w.2, the ..... .3, only to prevent karundevi gounder from borrowing money from third parties and encumber the family properties is, therefore, correct. these documents are not intended to be acted upon as they appear to be so artificial. as stated earlier, on the same day, karundevi gounder also settles the suit properties in favour of palanisamy gounder. ..... with the view of the trial court that exs.b.1, b.3 and b.4 are sham andnominal documents and that they were not intended to be acted upon, itfollows that the properties continued to be joint family properties, 16. the sale and addition of joint family properties in this case isshown in a tabular .....

M.M.Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Director and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... ) of the esi act. further, as for the esi act, the supreme court had decided the matter in goetze (india) limited case (cited supra).10. ..... since an order of stay had placed the demand for tax in abeyance. therefore, during the period of stay, an assessee cannot be said to be in default and could not be subjected to penalty under section 42 of the karnataka agricultural income tax act. a reading of section 42 of the act will show that it is not similar to section 39(5 ..... the contribution payable and nothing beyond that." 9.the counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon a judgment of the supreme court in consolidated coffee ltd. v. agricultural income tax officer, madikeri and others reported in 2001 (1) scc 278 for the purpose of contending that when a stay is in operation, recovery of .....

Sahruvan Nachair and Another Vs. V.S. Mohammed HussaIn Maracair and 3 ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2001Mad36; 2001(75)ECC20; (2001)1MLJ188

..... court in handique's case, : [1966]60itr216(sc) . in fact, it was observed in the said case that the expression 'holds' appearing in the assam agricultural income-tax act includes a two-fold idea of the actual possession of a thing and also of being invested with a legal title. though this observation was made in connection with the ..... the eldest son mohamed iqbal is the fourth defendant in the suit. late sheik ismail maracaiar executed a registered settlement deed dated 16.2.1931 and the income from the properties mentioned in the deed have to be utilised for the charities mentioned therein. sheik ismail maracaiar appointed his eldest son hameed maracaiar as trustee for ..... settlement deed on 16-2-1931. the properties mentioned in the settlement deed are the suit properties and other properties and as per the recitals therein, the income from the properties have to be utilised for the charities mentioned therein and the remaining have to be equally divided among the heirs. as per the recitals .....

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. (Miss) Sripriya Mahesh

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]245ITR764(Mad)

..... and such a potential buyer was not likely to value the shares at a lesser figure only because an appeal was pending before the statutory authorities under the agricultural income-tax act in which the correctness or otherwise of an assessment order made against the company was in issue. this judgment does not refer to rule 1d, as indeed ..... the apex court referred to earlier in the case of kedarnath jute mfg. co. ltd. v. cit : [1971]82itr363(sc) . that was a case under the income-tax act. the court held that the liability of the assessee under the sales tax act did not cease to be a liability because the assessee had taken proceedings before higher authorities for ..... 15,668. the company's claim that it was not liable under sections 41(2) and 45 of the income-tax act, 1961, was rejected by the assessing authority. the claim had been rejected under those provisions by the income-tax officer on the ground that the compensation received by the company for loss of route permits was assessable to .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corp ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1998]233ITR400(Mad)

..... and general mills co. ltd. v. state of u. p. : [1979]118itr277(sc) . the supreme court dealt with a case arising under the u. p. agricultural income-tax act, 1948. that case dealt with the option regarding the method of computation and whether it is permissible for the assessee to change his option by filing a revised return. the ..... in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under section 139(5) of the income-tax act ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that after the filing of the revised return ..... correct in granting the current year's depreciation and the tribunal also held that by not granting the current year's depreciation, the priority fixed by the income tax act for the allowance of depreciation and other allowances would not in any way, be disturbed. the tribunal placed reliance on a circular of the board and held .....

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman, Madras and 2 Other ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998(2)CTC426; (2001)3MLJ178

..... . both the counsel referred to the judgments already extracted above are arising out of the income-tax act. section 2(1-a) of the income tax act, 1961 defines 'agricultural income' as follows:agricultural income means-(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in india and is used for agricultural purposes;(b) any income derived from such land by---(ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of ..... learned judges gave individual judgments, but all agree on the principle.27. similarly in the judgment reported in commissioner of income tax v. benoy kumar sahas roy : [1957]32itr466(sc) the apex court while interpreting the word 'agriculture' and 'agricultural purpose' for the purpose of income tax act, 1922 has elaborately discussed the question which has already been extracted in paragraph 14 supra.28. in fact the .....