Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Page 9 of about 27,418 results (0.136 seconds)

Apr 25 2012 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. Ms. T.T.G.industries Limited.

Court : Chennai

..... section 80ia of the income tax act, excluded the receipts of service charges, charges for transportation, erection and commission charges, labour charges and sale scrap to the tune of rs.77,27,918/- as not ..... labour charges, sale of scraps during manufacturing to be included as profits and gains of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80ia of the income tax act?2. the assessee herein is engaged in the manufacture of coke-oven and goose neck cleaning system for steel and other industries. the assessing officer while computing the deduction under ..... constituting the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking. the assessee preferred an appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals), who agreed with the assessee. the appellate authority pointed out that the amount represented part of the sale proceeds designated differently in order to get reduction in sales ..... before the tribunal, which confirmed the view of the commissioner of income tax (appeals). aggrieved by this, the revenue is on appeal before this court.3. in the decision reported in [2009] 317 itr 218 liberty india v. cit, the apex court considered the scope of section 80ia and 80ib of the act. the apex court pointed out that,"............. it is evident that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2012 (HC)

Ms.Aktiengesellaschaft, Kunhle Kopp Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...

Court : Chennai

..... further appeal before the tribunal. in paragraph 7 of the order of the tribunal, it is stated that the above stated relief would not fall under section 263 of the income tax act. the tribunal however viewed that the assessee was not precluded from raising this issue before the assessing officer for his consideration.14. as already pointed out when the tribunal ..... part of 1973 agreement, then the consequences of treating the second agreement as part of the original agreement should have been considered for applying the relevant statutory provisions under the income tax act and in consonance with the double taxation avoidance agreement.13. on the short ground that the assessee does not dispute the first question of law, we agree with the ..... above finding. in the circumstances, the tribunal committed a serious error in its view that granting of such relief would not fall within the jurisdiction of section 263 of the income tax act.9. per contra, learned standing counsel for the revenue supported the order of the tribunal.10. heard learned counsel for the assessee as well as learned standing counsel for ..... export sales, indigenous sales and lumpsum royalty. the assessee claimed that the receipt of the royalty on import sales was not taxable as per section 9(i)(iv) of the income tax act. thus, the assessee claimed exemption on export sales royalty and 50% of the royalty on indigenous sales as representing payment towards development of patent. the assessing officer, however, rejected .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2012 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax. Vs. Ms.Lakshmi Vilas Bank.

Court : Chennai

..... is entitled to the bad debt written off as allowable, even though the same was hit by the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the income tax act, 1961? 2.whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is ..... section 260a of the income tax act against the order dated 10.12.2003 made in i.t.a.no.265/mds/1996 on the file of the income tax appellate tribunal, "c" bench, chennai for the assessment year 1992-93.(judgment of the court was delivered by chitra venkataraman,j.)1. this tax case (appeal) ..... and plant". admittedly, there is no definition of what 'machinery' is about. however, in the decision reported in (1964) 53 itr 165 (commissioner of income tax, madras vs. mir mohammed ali), the apex court referred to the decision of the privy council in the case of corporation of calcutta v. chairman, cossipore ..... a technical term and in the absence of any definition under the act, ordinary meaning would prevail. indeed rule 8 of the income tax rules treats aero-engines separately from aircraft, but this cannot be used to interpret the clauses in the act that what was purchased and installed was machinery and after installation, ..... a wider meaning has to be given to the said term.8. in the decision reported in (2000) 244 itr 192 (commissioner of income tax vs. anand theatres), the apex court applied this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2012 (HC)

Ms.CaplIn Point Laboratories Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of In ...

Court : Chennai

..... the tribunal is very bright and further it is stated that the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority wrongly denied the benefit of section 80hhc of the income-tax act. the passing of garnishee order is wrong, illegal, without any basis and justification.4. learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the revenue has ..... claiming deduction under section 80hhc and 80i of rs.1,76,116 and rs.1,44,463/- respectively. the said assessment was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the income-tax act. subsequently, the assessing officer issued a notice under section 148 on 18.2.2000 for reopening the assessment. objecting the same, the petitioner also filed a letter dated 9 ..... order of assessment. aggrieved by that, the assessee filed an appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal and the same is still pending. when the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) dismissed the appeal, the revenue initiated recovery proceedings by way of issuing garnishee order under section 226(3) of the income-tax act. aggrieved by that, the petitioner/assessee filed present writ petition challenging the garnishee ..... already paid a sum of rs.52,33,773/- towards the tax and credit was also given by the revenue. against the levy of interest under section 220 of the income-tax act, the petitioner can also file waiver petition before the concerned commissioner of income-tax under section 220(2) of the act.7. taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2012 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Eco Media (P) Limited

Court : Chennai

..... that the said award was not given by government of india or any agency authorised by the government of india as per the provisions of section 10(17a) of the income tax act. consequently, the assessee could not be said to have disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.4. as regards reopening of the assessment on the basis of ..... ,29,420/- being an award money for its film "silent valley" "an indian rain forest" and claimed exemption under section 10(17a) of the income tax act. the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the income tax act on 7.9.1995 and the loss was determined at rs.38,960/-. admittedly, the receipt of the award money was disclosed in the balance ..... right in setting aside the order of the lower authority and delete the entire addition of rs.2,29,420/- on the ground the reopening under section 147 of the income tax act is not valid on the basis of the factual error pointed out by the audit party? "2. the assessee is a private limited company. the assessee received a sum of ..... the assessment was bad in law. the tribunal, however, pointed out that the audit party had interpreted the provisions of the income tax act and thereafter brought to the notice of the assessing officer with regard to the applicability of the income tax act in respect of the award received by the assessee. thus, the tribunal set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 2012 (HC)

Ms. Shanti Logistics (P) Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Inc ...

Court : Chennai

..... due date. however, the remittance was made well before the due date for filing the return of income. but the assessing officer disallowed a sum of rs.3,42,30,735/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the income tax act for the delay in remittance of tax deducted at source. the assessing authority, however, rejected the claim on the ground that the deduction had ..... been made beyond the accounting year. aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals).4. in considering the claim of the assessee ..... board dated 27.3.2009, particularly with reference to the amendment brought under the finance act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005, the commissioner of income tax (appeals) held that since tax deducted at source had been paid well before the due date for filing the return of income, the assessee was entitled to have the deduction.5. as against the substantive portion ..... for the assessment year 2007-08, the commissioner of income tax (appeals) referred to the contention taken by the assessee as regards the amendment brought forth with effect from 1.4.2005 under the finance act, 2008, mitigating the rigour of section 40(a)(ia) and the circular dated 27.3.2009 that the amendment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2012 (HC)

Ms.Eid Parry (India) Limited Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

..... order of the assessing officer.13. heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed on record.14. section 43 of the income tax act provides the definition of certain terms relevant to the profits and gains of business or profession. section 43(1) provides for definition of "actual cost ..... appeal nos.1311 and 1312 of 2005 is filed under section 260a of the income tax act against the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, 'a' bench, chennai dated 29.03.2005 made in i.t.a.nos.209 and 210( ..... 815/- remained unabsorbed. in the assessment for 1975-76, the assessee amalgamated company claimed depreciation on the written down value of the assets. the income tax officer determined the written down value by reducing from the actual cost, not only the depreciation actually allowed, but also the depreciation carried forward, ..... that we extract explanation 2a and explanation 3 relevant to the assessment years considered in the bombay judgment reported in [1991] 187 itr 1 (commissioner of income-tax vs hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. (bom)):" explanation 2a. -where, in a scheme of amalgamation, any capital asset is transferred by the amalgamating company ..... irrespective of the amendment to sub section (2), the decision of the bombay high court reported in [1991] 187 itr 1 (commissioner of income-tax vs hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. (bom)) would still have relevance for the purpose of considering whether explanation 3 would have to be read into explanation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2012 (HC)

Ms.Builtec Engineers and Builders. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...

Court : Chennai

..... to be accepted, then the purport of section 269 ss itself would be lost and there is no necessity at all to the provision like section 273 d of the income tax act. the parameters which would govern an outgoing and receipt cannot be one and the same, the assessee is duty bound to justify the receipt of cash from a close relative ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty of rs.7,35,475/- under section 271d of the income tax act?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law in rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant that the amount was ..... cause shown could not be accepted for exonerating the assessee from the rigour of penalty under section 271 d of the income tax act. in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered for receiving cash in violation of section 269 ss of the income tax act, the tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.7 ..... the proposal of penalty and accordingly, a sum of rs.7,36,475/- was levied as penalty under section 271 d of the income tax act.3. challenging the order of penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals). confirming the findings of the assessing officer, the commissioner held that the explanation offered by the assessee was far from satisfactory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1967 (HC)

S. Kanagasabapathi Pillai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1968Mad327; [1968]67ITR735(Mad)

..... the accounting year ended february 1, 1955, he was assessed on a total income which included rs. 10253, as foreign income after deducting the statutory allowance under the third proviso to sec. 4(1) of the income-tax act 1922. the total foreign income consisted of rs. 2400 as salary and the balance, as working share of ..... the assessee's of profits. in the firm of v.t.v. dharmaperumal pillai, the income-tax officer noticed that a sum of rs. 15,000 had ..... was revised under sec. 35, is not clear. but we are of the view that so far as rs. 10253 that was brought to tax by the income-tax officer is concerned, there can be no doubt that the charge should in any case be sustained on the accrual basis. the controversy, therefore, ..... without actual cash being handled, may as much result in remittance as by the physical transfer of cash. this proposition is supported by authority. commissioner of income-tax v. subramaniam chettiar, ilr (1927) mad 765 = air 1927 mad 841, decided by a full bench of this court held that credit entries made on ..... be treated as payments though that interest was not actually paid in british india. this decision was approved by the supreme court in indermani jatia v. commissioner of income-tax, u. p. : [1959]35itr298(sc) . in taking that view, the supreme court observed:'this decision ilr (1927) mad 765 = air 1927 mad 841 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1974 (HC)

R. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1976]102ITR227(Mad)

..... , circle i, kancheepuram, the second respondent herein, and quashing the order dated january 28, 1972, made by him under section 132(5) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. armed with a warrant under section 132(1), the second respondent searched the premises of the petitioner at no. 36, kumarichetty street, kancheepuram, and seized out of a ..... petitioner's lands.5. it is seen from the statements and the supporting records produced by the petitioner that he was owning about 50 acres of garden lands, which the income-tax officer would call as 'dry lands' and another 30 acres of leasehold lands. it is also found that about 2,400 yielding coconut trees are in these lands. it was ..... such income is relatable. but the first proviso enables him to treat the entire estimated undisclosed income as the total income chargeable to tax in the financial year in which the assets ..... such an order to be made if the tax calculated on the amount of undisclosed income estimated by him under that provision or any amount that may be required to satisfy any existing liability of the petitioner under the act, exceeds the amount. it, therefore, becomes necessary for the income-tax officer to ascertain or estimate the undisclosed income and the particular previous year to which .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //