Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Year: 1985 Page 3 of about 73 results (0.057 seconds)

Mar 14 1985 (HC)

George Maijo and Co. (Vizag) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-1985

Reported in : [1986]157ITR475(Mad)

..... that the premium received on the sale of import entitlements is taxable under section 28(iv) of the income-tax act 2. whether the tribunal was right in distinguishing the decision of the supreme court in : [1969]73itr652(sc) (cit v. madan gopal radhey lal) ?' 3. whether the tribunal was right in holding that the premium ..... ramanujam, j.1. the assessee in this application under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, seeks a direction from this court to the tribunal to refer the following three questions for the opinion of this court : '1. ..... taken to be a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt. this contention was rejected by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) on the ground that the assessee got the import entitlement because of its exports which is its regular business and in view of the close ..... and the sale proceeds came to rs. 5,80,436.89. the income-tax officer included the said amount as part of the assessee's income treating it as a revenue or business receipt. this was challenged by the assessee before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) contending that the sale proceeds of the import entitlement should be ..... same constituted profits and gains of the business of the assessee within the meaning of the said term in clause (iv) of section 28 of the said act. in these circumstances, it is impossible to regard these import entitlements as capital asset of the assessee. it is equally clear that, in these circumstances, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cheran Transport Private Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-13-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Mad)235; [1986]160ITR630(Mad)

..... ramanujam, j. 1. the revenue in this application filed under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, seeks a direction from this court to the income-tax appellate tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was ..... . the assessee also claimed depreciation at the rate of 10% in respect of certain buildings located in the various bus termini on the ground that they were factory buildings. the income-tax officer disallowed both these claims put forward by the assessee on the ground that the interest paid is capital in nature and the buildings in respect of which depreciation is ..... of income-tax (appeals) that the interest payable on the compensation was an allowable revenue expenditure holding that even though the compensation may be of a capital ..... his view the registration of buildings as factory buildings under the factories act would be sufficient to prove their use as workshops although they were also used for parking the buses. in this view, the assessee's appeal was allowed. the revenue took the matter in appeal to the income-tax appellate tribunal. the tribunal, however, concurred with the view of the commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1985 (HC)

P.V. Thyagaraj and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-28-1985

Reported in : [1987]165ITR412(Mad)

..... petitioners' property cannot be proceeded against. another contention put forward by the petitioners is that the recovery proceedings themselves are time-barrier under section 231 of the income-tax act, 1961. 2. the first respondent, the tax recovery officer, has filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the gift deed having come into existence after the proclamation has been issued regarding the property ..... firm had been assessed in the years 1947-48 to 1950-51 and 1963-64 and 1964-65. in view of the non-payment of the tax, certificates under section 46(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, were issued as early as march 26, 1958, and may 19, 1959. based on the said certificates, recovery proceedings had been initiated. while those recovery ..... . therefore, the petitioners have got an alternative remedy provided by the status. we are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners should go before the tax recovery officer under rule 11 of schedule ii of the income-tax act to challenge the impugned order said to have been passed by the first respondent. therefore, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we ..... which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings. on the other hand, we find that rule 11 of schedule ii to the income-tax act provides for such an investigation by the tax recovery officer. in this case, the order passed by the tax recovery officer directing the tenant to pay rents to the department has been challenged as being without jurisdiction and also on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1985 (HC)

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1985

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Mad)230; [1986]157ITR342(Mad)

..... .j. 1. these two petitions have been filed by the assessee challenging two notices issued under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961, by which the assessee was called upon to show cause why relief allowed under section 80j of the act should not be recomputed excluding the borrowed capital in view of the retrospective amendment brought about by the finance (no. 2 ..... commissioner has held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 80j of the act and he further directed the income-tax officer to allow the assessee, the relief admissible under section 80j of the act. the income-tax officer while giving effect to the order of the appellate assistant commissioner determined the capital employed at rs. 3,43 ..... undertaking was computed at rs. 3,63,74,658. 4. for the assessment year 1974-75, the relief under section 80j of the act is given to the assessee by an order of the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax while deciding the appeal, i.t.a. no. 566/77-78. dealing with ground no. 5, taken by the assessee, the appellate assistant ..... the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee which is a public limited company registered under the indian companies act. the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73 in its final stage was determined by an order of the income-tax appellate tribunal i.t.a. no. 1241 (mds) /76-77. in paragraph 10 of the order, the tribunal has positively .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1985 (HC)

Hallacarry Estate Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1985

Reported in : [1985]155ITR411(Mad)

..... take up and dispose of the same today itself on merits. the petitioner has suffered an order of assessment under the tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', at the hands of the respondent. mr. r. l. ramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that as against the ..... preferred to the assistant commissioner of agricultural income-tax, uthagamandalam, and the same is pending and hence, as per the proviso to s. 40 of the act, the respondent should not treat the petitioner as in default. section 40 of the act with the proviso reads as follows : 'recovery of tax and penalties. - any amount specified ..... failing so to pay shall be deemed to be in default : provided that, when an assessee has presented an appeal under section 31, the agricultural income-tax officer may, in his discretion, treat the assessee as not being in default so long as such appeal is undisposed of.' 2. learned counsel for the ..... passed the impugned order dated march 26, 1985, stating that the stay of collection of tax could not be complied with. mr. r. lokapriya, learned government advocate, would submit that the proviso to s. 40 of the act would come into play only if the agrl. ito is to treat the assessee as ..... that such steps are being taken by the respondent. it is needless to state that the import of the proviso to s. 40 of the act as well as the decision of this court, referred to above, will be kept in mind by the respondent if in fact he should take .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1985 (HC)

Smt. T. Seetha Vs. Income-tax Officer.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-17-1985

Reported in : [1986]15ITD636(Mad)

..... of recovery, it should be allowed as a bad debt since the other requirements specified in this behalf under section 36(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act) are satisfied. he invited our attention to the decision of the madras high court in godavari bai v. ced [1971] 86 itr ..... and accrued to the wife and the minor sons because of their capacity mentioned in section 16(3) (a) (i) and (ii) in the income-tax act.' (p. 276)the madras high court in misrinul succors case (supra), while dealing with a similar question, has followed the decision of the supreme ..... the interest so allowed was assessable in the hands of the husband under section 16(3) (a) (i) and (ii) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the supreme court held that it was so assessable. while coming to this conclusion the supreme court held that the accumulated profits of the ..... by the partners, over and above their capital contribution mentioned earlier, would be entitled to interest and the credit of the partners share of income periodically in her current account would, without the partner exercising her right of withdrawal, would amount to the partner having voluntarily advanced the amounts ..... can convert what otherwise was not a borrowing into a borrowing. though these observations were with reference to the claim under the companies (profits) surtax act, their significance cannot be lost sight of in the present context. therefore, the learned departmental representative submitted, that, even though the assessee might be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 1985 (HC)

Fourth Income-tax Officer Vs. Canara Finances.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-07-1985

Reported in : [1986]17ITD18(Mad)

..... of any gratuity this year. thus, the claim is not allowable as deduction. it was also submitted that section 40a (7) of the income-tax act, 1961, (the act), applies and the conditions laid down therein are not satisfied. the learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the commissioner ( ..... fulfils the conditions laid down in section 40a (7) the deduction claimed cannot be allowed.5. in peoples engg. & motor works ltd. v. cit : [1981]130itr174(cal) the calcutta high court held that for gratuity to be deductible the assessee must fulfil the conditions said down in section 40a ..... 1) clearly states as under :'(1) the provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained any other provisions of this act .......'in view of the clear language therein it is clear that notwithstanding the other provisions it is only section 40a (7) which would be ..... appeals). he urged that the liability for gratuity is allowable as deduction under section 36 as well as under section 37 of the act.4. we have considered the rival submissions. from the assessment year 1973-74 onwards the allowability of any provision for gratuity is governed by ..... 7). the deduction cannot be allowed on general principles under any other section of act because section 40a (1) would have effect notwithstanding anything contained in sections 30 to 37 of the act including sections 36 and 37.6. in cit v. andhra prabha (p.) ltd. : [1980]123itr760(mad) the madras .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1985 (HC)

Asst. Registrar of Companies Vs. Southern Machinery Works Ltd. and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-20-1985

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas670(Mad)

..... income-tax act. it was contended, that under the income-tax act, the principal officer designated is responsible for compliance of the requirements under the various provisions of the income-tax act and, therefore, all the directors cannot be prosecuted. it was held that it was a matter of evidence ..... or not is a matter of evidence and the complaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold. in that case, prosecution was launched under the income-tax act against the directors of a company for failure to deduct income-tax on the salary of the employees, for failure to submit the returns in time, and for other violations of the provisions of the ..... , it is stated that the expressions ' officer' and ' director' shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the board of directors of the company is accustomed to act. the term ' officer ' is defined under section 2(30) as including any director, managing agent, secretaries and treasures, manager or secretary , or any person in accordance with whose ..... launched. the learned trial magistrate upheld the objection and dismissed all the companies as such. hence, these revisions by the assistant registered of companies. 3. section 159 of the act deals with submission of annual return by the company having a share capital . sub-section (1) of this section providers that every company having a share capital shall, within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1985 (HC)

Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Bhagavathy Investments (P.) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-05-1985

Reported in : [1986]17ITD729(Mad)

..... orderper shri t. venkatappa, judicial member - this appeal relates to the levy of additional income-tax under section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act). the ito found that the distributable income was rs. 1,73,458 and the dividend distributed was rs. 93,660. the assessee is an investment company and, therefore, should have distributed 90 per cent i.e., rs. ..... the acquired new machinery out of borrowings. the tribunal accepted the assessees contention that the requirements of rehabilitation should be considered before applying section 23a (1) of the indian income-tax, 1922 (the act). on reference, the bombay high court held that the tribunal could not have come to any other conclusion. it could be said that from the businessmans standpoint it was ..... , section 104 has no application.4. it will be useful to refer the decided case law. in cit v. gangdhar banerjee & co. (p.) ltd. : [1965]57itr176(sc) , the supreme court observed as under :'... the income-tax officer, acting under this section, is not assessing any income to tax : that will be assessed in the hands of the shareholder. he only does what the directors should ..... have done, he puts himself in the place of the directors. though the object of the section is to prevent evasion of tax, the provision must be worked not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-16-1985

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Mad)71; [1986]159ITR601(Mad)

..... a few facts. the assessee is a general insurance company. in respect of the assessment year 1969-70, it claimed relief both under sections 80k and 80m of the income-tax act, 1961. the income-tax officer rejected the claim. however, on appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner, following the tribunals order in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964 ..... 80k of the income-tax act. this court noted that there were no restrictive words similar to 'net dividend' in section 80a and that, therefore, the rebate could not be restricted to the net dividend. a ..... co. ltd. : [1975]99itr243(mad) which related, as already stated, to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 with reference to rebate under section 99(1)(iv) of the income-tax act, 1961. this was on the basis that the ratio of the judgment given with reference to section 99(1)(iv) would be equally applicable in construing the provisions of section ..... also approved of the interpretation placed on that provision.while the matter stood there, parliament intervened and by the finance (no. 2) act of 1980 inserted two sections, namely, sections 80aa and 80ab in chapter vi-a of the income-tax act, 1961, and those provisions read as follows :'80aa. computation of deduction under section 80m. - where any deduction is required to be allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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