Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 2007 section 76 amendment of section 271 Court: chennai Page 11 of about 922 results (0.178 seconds)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Greenham Estates (P) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1996]217ITR80(Mad)

..... firm is a manufacturing company, the assessee should also have been considered as an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(7)(c) of the finance act for the relevant assessment years. according to the department, the assessee is essentially a plantation company and it received share income from the registered firm, which ..... consideration before the tribunal. the first question is as to whether the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(7)(c) of the finance act, 1981. according to the department, since the partnership-firm is doing manufacturing activities, the assessee, who is a partner in the partnership-firm, cannot claim ..... 73itr751(sc) . the second question that arose for consideration before the tribunal was whether the assessee satisfied the expln. to s. 2(7)(c) of the finance act for the relevant assessment year. according to the explanation the income attributable to any one or more of the manufacturing or the processing activities of the goods included .....

Short Bros. (P.) Ltd., in Voluntary Liquidation by Its Liquidator, A.K ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1964)1MLJ66

..... the proceedings of assessment and, in subsequent appeal.4. the definition of 'dividend' is an inclusive one. sub-clause (c) of section 2(6-a) was substituted by section 3 of the finance act of 1956 with effect from the 1st of april, 1956. it reads thus:dividend includes any distribution made to the shareholders of a company ..... there is thus intrinsic evidence to show that accumulated profits could not include the current profits during the year under assessment.7. after the amendment by the finance act of 1955, the above definition was replaced by the following:(c) any distribution made to the shareholders of a company out of accumulated profits of the company ..... section 2(6-a)(c) would be profis accumulated in the financial years preceding the year in which the liquidation took place.8. it is this observation of the supreme court that is relied upon by mr. ramamani to support his contention that the accumulated profits referred to in the provisions even after its amendment by the finance act .....

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N.M.R. Krishnamoorthy and Sons Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]241ITR439(Mad)

..... substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on april 1, 1979, when the rule came into force.' 5. the commissioner took the view that section 40 of the finance act did not exclude the operation of rule 1bb which was confirmed by the tribunal. the view taken by the tribunal and the commissioner is in conformity with ..... pavement is ignored and the provisions of rule 1bb would have to be applied in making the valuation. the commissioner agreed with the assessee's case that section 40 of the finance act, 1983, did not exclude the operation of rule 1bb and accordingly directed the assessing officer to refer the matter again to the valuation officer to determine ..... between the specified area and the unbuilt area exceeded 20 per cent. and hence rule 1bb could not be applied to value it and section 40(4) of the finance act, 1983, excluded application of section 7(1) and rule 1bb made thereunder and accordingly assessed the property at rs. 19,48,000 as determined by the valuation officer .....

Short Brothers (P.) Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Salem.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1964]51ITR315(Mad)

..... adequate remedies in the proceedings of assessment and in subsequent appeal.the definition of 'dividend' is an inclusive one. sub-clause (c) of section 2 (6a) was submitted by section 3 of the finance act of 1956 with effect from the 1st april, 1956. it reads thus :'dividend includes - ... any distribution made to the shareholders of a ..... . there is thus intrinsic evidence to show that accumulated profits could not include the current profits during the year under assessment.after the amendment by the finance act of 1955, the above definition was replaced by the following :'(c) any distribution made to the shareholders of a company out of accumulated profits of ..... section 2 (6a) (c) would be profits accumulated in the financial years preceding the year in which the liquidation took place.it is this observation of the supreme court that is relied upon by mr. ramamani to support his contention that the accumulated profits referred to in the provisions even after its amendment by the finance act .....

K.S. Venkatraman and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1999)155CTR(Mad)303

..... that reversal however, was not on the ground that a construction company cannot be an industrial company for the purpose of expln. to s. 2(7)(c) of finance act 2 of 1977, which lays down the terms for determining the claim of a company for being regarded as an industrial company. it is in the interest of justice that ..... regarded as an industrial activity, would not disentitle the undertaking or the owner thereof from claiming the benefits provided under s. 32a0 of the act, if all other conditions as set out in that section are met by the assessee.8. as the matter has not been examined with reference to the question as to whether the plant or ..... regarded as an industrial undertaking to the limited extent of its claim for the benefits under the act, in relation to the activity which can properly be regarded as a manufacturing activity carried on by such an undertaking.7. sec. 32a of the act which confers the benefit of investment allowance is a provision, which is obviously meant to encourage .....

Cit Vs. Tirupur Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Finance Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2003]127TAXMAN392(Mad)

..... the company was owning the property as a landlord and therefore, that part of the building let out to punjab national bank was exigible to wealth tax under section 40(3) of the finance act, 1983. the appellate tribunal, on appeal by the assessee, however took a different view on the ground that the property was used by the assessee for ..... the building which was let out by the assessee in favour of punjab national bank would be an exempted asset from the list of assets found in section 40(3) of the finance act 1983?the assistant commissioner of wealth tax rejected the claim of the assessee by holding it was liable to wealth tax. the commissioner of wealth tax (appeals ..... tribunal was right in law in holding that the property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth tax within the meaning of section 40(3)(vi) of finance act, 19832. the short facts are the assessee is a closely, held company in which the public are not substantially interested and its assets are subjected to .....

Smt. P. Balammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2002]125TAXMAN562(Mad)

..... the net wealth of the assessee. the following observation of the supreme court is relevant for the purpose of this case :'the declaration contemplated under section 68 of the finance act, 1965, is a declaration in respect of income of earlier years which had been concealed and on which tax was payable during the relevant assessment ..... the income at the appropriate time and evaded tax did not mean that he was not liable to pay tax. the court also held that section 68 of the finance act, 1965 under which the declaration was made prescribed the procedure for assessment of the concealed income but the liability was held to be deductible as a ..... principles laid down in ahmed ibrahim sahigra dhoraji's case (supra) and held that there are no distinguishable principles in section 68 of the finance act, 1965 and the voluntary disclosure of income and wealth ordinance act, 1975 in spite of certain dissimilarities, but the objects of both the schemes are to encourage disclosure of concealed income .....

Gannan Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. Vs. State of Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1954Mad130

..... on a sinking fund policy. the question that arose for decision was whether the company was carrying on 'trade' or 'business' within the meaning of the finance act of 1915, section 39. the court of appeal held that the company did carry on trade or business and was, therefore, liable to be assessed to excess profits duty under ..... the finance act.lord sterndale m. r. at p. 272 considered the meaning of the word 'business' used in the finance act, section 39 and according to the learned master of rolls, the word denotes trade or business of any description carried on ..... and that even holding-company, which does not do any active business but only indulges in passively carrying on business, may yet be doing 'business' within the meaning of the finance act.42. a. lewis and co. (westminster), ltd. v. bell property trust ltd.', 1940 1 ch 345 (z3), is an interesting case. the question dealt with was .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thangamaligai and Co.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]241ITR525(Mad)

..... rejected as a question of fact and hence this question cannot be referred.4. sub-section (3a) of section 37 of the income-tax act, 1961 (act no. 43 of 1961-for short 'it act'), which was inserted by the finance act, 1983, with effect from april 1, 1984, and omitted by the finance act, 1985, with effect from april 1, 1986, reads as under :'(3a) notwithstanding anything contained in ..... such excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.'5. sub-section (sb) of section 37 thereof, inserted by the finance act, 1983, with effect from april 1, 1984, and omitted by the finance act, 1985, with effect from april 1, 1986, reads as under :'(3b) the expenditure, referred to in sub .....

Ms.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

..... 306 (commissioner of income tax kolkata iii v. alom extrusions limited), wherein the supreme court had considered the effect of the omission of the second proviso to section 43 b of the income tax act under finance act, 2003, as having retrospective effect from 1.4.1988, he submitted that going by the deposit made in the separate account, which cannot be in any ..... the decision reported in (2009) 319 itr 306 (commissioner of income tax kolkata iii v. alom extrusions limited) the apex court pointed out that the object of section 43 b, inserted under the finance act 1983, with effect from 1.4.1983, was to disallow deduction claimed merely by making a book entry based on mercantile system of accounting. referring to the deletion .....