Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)14VST234(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petitions are filed against the orders of the Tribunal herein for quashing the order demanding interest on the ground that the assessee had paid the base level sales tax belatedly while availing the benefit of deferral of sales tax. Admittedly, the deferral of sales tax was granted to the petitioner in respect of three expansion units on different dates, the first of the two fell under consideration under G.O. Ms. No. 500 Industries (MTG II) Department dated May 14, 1990 and that of the third unit was granted on October 6, 1994 under G.O. Ms. No. 119, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated April 13, 1994. It was pointed out by the third respondent that the assessee had not maintained the payment on base level sale figure as per G.O. Ms. No. 119, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated April 13, 1994. Hence, the petitioner herein was liable to pay the tax to the tune of Rs. 27 lakhs. Faced with the threat of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2001]249ITR137(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any way proceeding by way of sate of the properties referred to in the notice dated January 5, 1996, under reference No. S.1-23/Cuddalore, issued by the first respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. He had income from a lodge known as 'Hotel Brin-davan' and a cinema theatre known as 'New Cinema Theatre' both at Cuddalore. He was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1976-77 and thereafter. It is stated that on receipt of the notice impugned, the peti-tioner made enquiry with the officials, and she carne to know that her father was liable to pay income-tax arrears of a sum of Rs. 67,575 with interest for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1983-84. The petitioner is challenging the notice on the ground that her father was assessed to income-tax ex parte for the assessment year 1976-77 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents from initiating and or continuing any recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed demand relating to the assessment year 1995-96 in respect of which an appeal and stay petition are pending before the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the said appeal and the petition for stay by the said respondent.ORDER1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents from initiating and or continuing any recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed demand relating to the assessment year 1995-96 in respect of which an appeal and stay petition are pending before the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the said appeal and the petition for stay by the said respondent.2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Relevant as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1997]223ITR738(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that any interest payable for delayed payment of tax with the specific permission of the Income-tax Officer under section 220(2) should also be considered as levied on the basis of profits and gains just because the tax due was based on the profits or gains ?' 2. In respect of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed deduction of interest paid under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, amounting to Rs. 6,104. The Income-tax Officer pointed out that two installments of interest, namely, Rs. 3,155 and Rs. 2,949 paid by way of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act cannot be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(Mad)230; [1998]234ITR796(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 504 and 505 of 1983, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred to us the following common question of law for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 18(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on debentures issued by the co-operative land mortgage bank should be assessed as 'interest on securities' and not under 'other sources' ?' 2. The assessee is carrying on banking business and it had some debentures issued by the co-operative land mortgage bank. The Income-tax Officer assessed the interest income from the debentures held by the assessee issued by the co-operative land mortgage bank under the head 'other sources' for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that it should be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)19VST447(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Asst. No. 2661801/02-03, set aside the impugned proceedings dated September 26, 2003 and further direct the respondent to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as prescribed under Section 7F read with Rule 18F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 and thereafter take action in accordance with law.2. Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice for the respondents.3. The petitioner put in issue the notice dated September 26, 2003 issued by the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Salem Town (North), requesting the assessee to pay tax, surcharge and resale tax of Rs. 4,85,928 within three days of the receipt of the notice along with interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.4. It is the case of the petitioner that in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad445; [1965]57ITR569(Mad); (1965)1MLJ40
(1)This is a consolidated reference under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the question referred for our opinion being common for the two years of assessment, 1957-58 and 1958-59. As formulated, the question is a rolled up one, the first part of it relating essentially to a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, while the latter is a question of law. The substantial matter referred for our decision relates to the operative nature of two deeds of trust executed by the assessee on 1-4-1943 and 7-3-1956. The question, as referred, runs:"Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the trust was genuine and not revocable within the meaning of S. 16(1)(c) is legal ?"On behalf of the Department the case was presented to us on an alternative basis, viz., (1). There was no material for the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that he trusts established by the assessee on the two dates referred to above, were real or genuine ones; (2) Even if they were intended to be operative docume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]87ITR17(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, at the instance of the revenue :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's share in the agricultural lands owned by the two firms was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 '2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are these. The assessee is the widow of one Ramanathan Chettiar who was a partner in two firms, (1) Valimalai Rubber Estate, and (2) Peramboocoly Coffee Estate. The assets of these firms mainly consisted of agricultural lands. Ramanathan Chettiar died on April 12, 1960, and his widow, the assessee, filed a wealth-tax return valuing the net wealth of the deceased as on the date of his death at Rs. 5,80,645. In computing the value of the net wealth the assessee did not take into account ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(Mad)171; [2002]253ITR139(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single judge, who has refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners. A few facts would be necessary. 2. The petitioners are the directors of a private limited company called Anaimugham Transport Private Limited. There was tax liability against this company for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79. The tax liability for the assessment year 1974-75 was Rs. 18,855 while the tax liability for the assessment year 1978-79 came to Rs. 3,58,174. A notice came to be served to the directors of the company, the petitioners in the writ petition, under Section 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By that notice, it was informed to the company that the company was in tax arrears for the aforementioned two assessment years in the sum of Rs. 27,347 and Rs. 3,25,976, respectively. In addition to these amounts, the company was also liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act as als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]242ITR391(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal dated December 23, 1988, made in C. C. No. 237 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Vellore, North Arcot District. 2. The circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the appeal may be stated as follows : The Income-tax Officer, Circle (1), Vellore, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-V, within the meaning of Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and on his authorisation filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent is a dealer in oil and also a partner in a firm of financiers and is running his business at No. 169, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruppattur, North Arcot District. He is liable to be assessed to income-tax within the jurisdiction of the complainant/ appellant. The respondent filed his return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 on or about February 25, 1984. The return was accompanied by a statement of income, item-wise ...
Tag this Judgment!