Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Year: 1995 Page 1 of about 218 results (0.069 seconds)

Mar 25 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Race Club

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1995

Reported in : [1996]219ITR39(Mad)

..... or charitable institutions and, therefore, the profits from the scheme were not exempted from taxation under section 4(3)(ia) of the income-tax act.24. thus, considering the facts arising in the assessment year 1972-73 in the light of the decisions of the supreme court in ..... following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the income of rs. 3,87,832 being the net collections on the three days on which ..... separate fund which would be administered by the secretary of the club. the fund has its own separate rules, and it has separate accounts. the income-tax officer in the prior order wanted to make out that the collections were made by the secretary of the race club and the surplus should be treated ..... the second question relates to surplus in the race club accident fund. there was a surplus of rs. 7,733 in the said fund. the income-tax officer followed the prior year's order and had pointed out that there was no obligation imposed on the trust to disburse the fund and such disbursement ..... was purely discretionary. the income-tax officer treated this surplus as income of the assessee-company. on appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner considered all the facts and had held that this is a separate fund .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carburettors Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-07-1995

Reported in : [1996]221ITR680(Mad)

..... years and could deal with it as if it were their own asset, and amounts paid are not admissible as business expenditure under the income-tax act.' 11. thus, according to the facts in the abovesaid decision also, the assessee incurred expenditure under a collaboration agreement as a package deal ..... said to arise out of the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 1976-77 for our opinion under section 256(1) 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 the sum of ..... arising in this case, confirmed the order passed by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals). 4. learned standings counsel appearing for the department submitted that the drawings were purchased by the assessee by an outright purchase. the drawings ..... drawings would not be of a permanent value to the assessee so as to treat such expenditure as capital expenditure. accordingly, the commissioner of income-tax deleted the addition of rs. 71,657. aggrieved, the department field the second appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal, on considering the facts ..... collaborator for the manufacturing of a special type of automobile component on the specific orders of the defence department. according to the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), as there was no possibility of such orders being repeated in future and as in the modern days of day-to-day .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Krishnaswamy and Sons

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-03-1995

Reported in : [1996]219ITR157(Mad)

..... to as 'the act'), on the ground that the assessee 'has concealed the particulars of his income', as found in the first part of the abovesaid section 271(1)(c). 3. the facts found are as follows : the ..... in holding that income assessed under compromise with a view to avoid protracted proceedings could not be the basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. in essence, it has to be seen whether the tribunal is justified in confirming the deletion of penalty, which was levied originally under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ..... been approved and that clearly indicates that if, on the assessee's own showing, the filing of the original return was an act of concealment of income, it did call for a penalty. in view of that, the decision in addl. cit v. t. k. perumalswamy : [1984]150itr600(mad) , cannot be pressed into service by the assesses.' 11. thus, we also find that ..... on that decision, that whenever there is an estimate of income, there is no scope for holding that the assessee has concealed the income. therefore, if on the assessee's own showing the filing of the original return was an act of concealment of income, it does call for a penalty. in fact in cit v. krishna and co. : [1979]120itr144(mad) also, this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arasan Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-12-1995

Reported in : [1996]220ITR476(Mad)

..... shareholders towards the shares allotted to them. both are distinct items and it is not possible to see any reasonable connection between them. neither by section 57(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, nor by applying the test of a prudent person managing his affairs, can it be said that the interest earned on the contributions made by the shareholders can be ..... be considered together for the purpose of adjustment. hence, the interest received on the deposit of paid-up capital is in the nature of income chargeable to tax as income from other sources under section 57 of the income-tax act.6. deductions claimed in respect of investment of paid-up capital and moneys borrowed in call deposits pending utilisation for construction of factory came up ..... . no. 1515/(mds) of 1979, dated january 16, 1982, for the assessment year 1978-79 for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') :'whether the appellate tribunal was right in facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that the interest received of rs. 25,532 before the commencement of ..... facts, while answering the question : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income of rs. 3,14,366 and miscellaneous income of rs. 2,742 are not taxable under section 56 of the income-tax act, 1961, under the head 'income from other sources' for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' the bombay high court held that the whole arrangement of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.i.D. Parry Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-09-1995

Reported in : [1995]216ITR489(Mad)

..... ,849 allowable; 7. original deduction under section 80-i has been erroneously granted since the mixture of fertilisers is not contemplated under item 13 of the sixth schedule to the income-tax act, 1961; 8. mistake in the computation of profit under section 41(1) in the revision order dated april 29, 1974, has been noticed. in the revision order dated april ..... govern and his finding whether it is a mistake or not has to be accepted.' this judgment has noticed the analogous provision in section 35 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and its interpretation in cit v. o. rm. m. sm. sv. sevugan : [1948]16itr59(mad) , wherein it was observed, 'section 35 has limited application .... clearly that section does not enable an ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the income-tax officer was not justified in modifying the disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, in the rectification proceedings made under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961 4. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal ..... was right in holding that the income-tax officer was not justified in modifying the disallowance under section 40(a)(v) of the income-tax act, 1961, in the rectification proceedings made under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. the assessee is a company. it submitted its income-tax returns for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, which were, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emcete and Sons (P.) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-1995

Reported in : [1995]215ITR817(Mad)

..... not be treated as an investment company for the purpose of application of the provisions of section 23a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 and the provisions of section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 2. the appellate assistant commissioner has found that the assessee is a company, whose ..... is a company whose business falls within the ambit of the said second part of the expression ... it is true that the term 'investment' is not defined in the income-tax act but it cannot be ignored that the act does not lay down that the terms and expressions not defined therein shall have the same meaning as given to them in the companies ..... 1961-62 with respect to the application of the provisions of section 23a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and for the assessment year 1962-63 in respect of section 104 of the income-tax act, 1961, has come before us as a reference under section 256(1) of the 1961 act at the instance of the revenue. the assessee is a private limited company. the ..... some other sections, takes the place of pride amongst them. section 109 of the 1961 income-tax act, which has taken the place of the old section 23a of the act is more understandable and less abstruse. but in these appeals, we are left with section 23a of the act. clause (i) of explanation 2 to section 23a concerns itself with a company whose business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. and Oth ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-12-1995

Reported in : [1995]216ITR455(Mad)

..... abdul hadi, j. 1. in all these tax case references under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), one common question is involved (apart from certain other questions in one or the other of the said cases) and hence they are heard together. 2. of these, one alone, viz., tax case no. 786 of 1986, is by the assessee ..... 32a, sub-section (5), taking into account the definition of the term 'transfer' under section 2, clause (47), of the act. the special bench of the tribunal which decided income-tax appeal no. 1951 of 1983 out of whose order arose the abovesaid tax cases nos. 491 and 492 of 1986, has held in its impugned order dated may 8, 1985, thus : 'a perusal ..... tribunal. both these later two cases relate to yet another assessee. 4. the abovesaid 'common question' is about the investment allowance under section 32a of the act, which is one of the deductions allowed in computing the 'total income' chargeable to tax under the act. the abovesaid allowance is given with effect from april 1, 1976, the said provision having been inserted in the ..... act by the finance act, 1976, and the said allowance has taken the place of development rebate allowance which was given earlier. the said allowance, under section 32a, is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S. Ganesan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-22-1995

Reported in : [1995]215ITR334(Mad)

..... ) and only such capital gains chargeable in the hands of the done alone should be clubbed in the hands of the assessee (husband) under section 64(1)(iv) of the income-tax act is correct and sustainable in law ?' 2. the facts giving rise to the above are stated by the tribunal as follows : 'the reference application relates to the assessment year 1977 ..... its mouth for horse-feed but not for the bridle. in our judgment, the whole rationale behind section 64(1)(iv) and (v) and comparable provisions in the earlier indian income-tax act, 1922, is to act as an anti-tax avoidance measure. the intention obviously was that an individual assessee ought not to be allowed to create separate subjects of charge to ..... entire property to shri k. kalyanakrishnan for rs. 40,000.' 3. in making the assessment the income-tax officer computed the capital gain at rs. 15,000 and rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under section 53 of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), on the ground that once the capital gain is ascertained as defined under section 2(24 ..... )(vi) of the act, it is assessable under section 64(1)(iv) and the provision of section 53 has to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Gopalakrishnan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1995

Reported in : [1995]216ITR443(Mad)

..... : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that no interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the income-tax act, 1961, could be levied in the assessee's case in the assessment completed on september 27, 1979 2. whether the appellate tribunal's view that the assessment made on september ..... assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had paid advance tax. the assessment was completed on the basis of best judgment under section 144 of the income-tax act on january 24, 1976. then, the commissioner of income-tax, acting under section 263 of the act, set aside the assessment and directed the income-tax officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. the fresh assessment ..... , consequent to the setting aside of the assessment originally made under section 144 of the act by the commissioner of income-tax under section 263 was not a regular assessment and, therefore, the income-tax officer was not justified in charging interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the income-tax act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?' 2. the assessee is an individual. in the ..... passed a consequential order on january 21, 1976, resulting in a refund of rs. 52,121. as the income-tax officer did not grant interest on this refund amount under section 214 of the income-tax act, 1961, the assessee filed a revision petition to the commissioner for grant of interest on the refund amount of rs. 52,121 which was granted as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-21-1995

Reported in : [1996]221ITR753(Mad)

..... at the instance of the department, 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 the debenture ..... the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the reserve had accumulated to rs. 15 lakhs. the income-tax officer and the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) held that it is only a provision to meet a known liability and hence not a reserve includible in the capital base ..... base. on appeal, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) also agreed with the income-tax officer. in further appeal by the assessee, the appellate tribunal held that as per clause 20 of the debenture trust deed, the ..... previous year relevant for the assessment year 1974-75, the reserve had accumulated to rs. 15,00,000. while completing the surtax assessment, the income-tax officer held that it is only a provision to meet a known liability and hence it is not a reserve to be includible in the capital ..... 'the debenture redemption fund was a 'reserve' and had to be included in the capital base for the purpose of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964'. 11. in cit v. peico electronics and electricals (formerly philips india ltd.) : [1987]166itr299(cal) , the calcutta high court held that, 'the debenture redemption reserve .....

Tag this Judgment!


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