Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Year: 2006 Page 11 of about 252 results (0.046 seconds)

Feb 06 2006 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Upasana Finance Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-2006

Reported in : (2006)202CTR(Mad)383; [2006]286ITR179(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. No. 1141/Mds/97, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing 100% depreciation on printing cylinders, sintex sipper ice box, ms bins which does not serve any purpose individually? 2. The brief facts leading to the above question of law are as under: i) The assessee is engaged in the business of hire purchase, finance and leasing etc. The Return of the company's income was filed on 30.12.1993. During the course of the assessment under Section 43(3), the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation which was claimed by the assessee at the rate of 100% on printing cylinders, MS bins and Shipper Sintex Ice Boxes under first proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act, by giving the reason that the assessee was a le...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2006 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Palaniappan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-11-2006

Reported in : [2006]284ITR257(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.8.2004 made in ITA. Nos. 909, 908, 907 and 910/Mds/2003, raising the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147, and completion of assessment without issue of notice under section 143(2) within 12 months is not valid?2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, non-furnishing of the copies of the reasons by the assessing officer for reopening the case under section 147, even though the assessee has not applied for certified copies of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer and paying the necessary charges is valid...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2006 (HC)

Tcv Engineering Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-14-2006

Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Mad)161; [2006]284ITR470(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present Appeals are filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 28.11.2002 in I.T.(SS) A No. 110/Mds/98. These appeals came up before this Court and this Court admitted the appeals on 17.06.2003 and formulated the following Substantial Question of Law:-(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment pursuant to the notice under Section 158BD issued in the instant case based on the action under section 132A in the case of T.T.V.Dinakaran is valid in law notwithstanding that no part of the assessment made was based on any records seized in the course of the action under Section 132A?(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of supervisory charges, which were duly recorded in the accounts regularly maintained by the appellant and which were not seized or requi...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2006 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jamal Photo Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-16-2006

Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Mad)427; [2006]285ITR209(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 27.6.2005 made in ITA No. 348/Mds/2001 allowing deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act holding that the photo processing machine installed by the assessee was used for the process of manufacturing and production of article or thing, entitling the assessee for deduction.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under.The assessee derives income from photo studio by exposing the negatives and printing of positives/photos. The assessing officer rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80I of the Act. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the order of the assessing officer. Hence, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the Commissioner holding that exposing of film rolls amounts to manufacturing and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80I of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenu...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2006 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sharp Industries

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-2006

Reported in : [2006]282ITR336(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'D' Bench dated 30.06.2005 in I.T.A. No. 530/Mds/2 002, for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial question of law. 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of interest income under Section 80HHC and 80I of the Income Tax Act?'2. The assessment year is 1993-94. The assessee firm is a manufacturer and seller of HP Monoblock pumps. Their claim with regard to deduction under Section 80HHC and 80I of the Income Tax Act was disallowed under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who allowed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grou...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2006 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Idhayam Publications Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-23-2006

Reported in : [2006]285ITR221(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. Nos. 1187/Mds/1998 dated 13.07.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench raising the following formulated substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, even though the Supreme Court held that Section 269SS is constitutionally valid in law?2. The assessee is running a company in the name of M/s. Idhayam Publications Private Limited for publication of books. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. In the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had accepted a cash loan of Rs. 2,94,000/- from M/s. Manian Creations, a sister concern, in violation of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. With the above information, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax initiate...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2006 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soundararaja Finance Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-2006

Reported in : [2006]283ITR559(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I. T. A. No. 1724/ Mds/97, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'B' Bench raising the following substantial question of law :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two electrical yarn cleaners by the asses-see is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent. ?2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under :(i) The assessee is a hire-purchase and lease finance company. The assessment year is 1992-93 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1992. The assessee-company filed its return of income on December 31, 1992, declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,180. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on December 8, 1993. Later, the case was taken up for scrutiny on December 6, 1993. During the year, the asses-see-company purchased two electrical yarn c...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2006 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Raju Cotton Mills

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-2006

Reported in : [2006]283ITR351(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1383, 1384 and 1385/Mds/2002 dated June 6, 2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The assessee is a partnership firm. They have filed their returns for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Their claim with regard to the cost of replacement of simplex machine and doubling frame costing Rs. 18,63,666 for the assessment year 1996-97, draw frame, simplex machine and doubling frame costing Rs. 25,03,443 for the assessment year 1997-98 and blow room and ring frame costing Rs. 37,47,933 for the assessment year 1998-99, was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, who was of the opinion that replacement of old by new machinery cannot be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed depreciation. The expenditure was treated as capital expenditure. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allow...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2006 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apex Laboratories P. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-24-2006

Reported in : [2006]284ITR364(Mad)

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I.T.A. No. 879/Mds/ 99 dated February 10, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under Section 139 nor on a notice under Section 142?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty without giving a finding of fact as to whether the tax audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time by the assessee?2. The facts leading to the above questions of law are as under:The relevant assessment year is 1993-94. The assessee filed its return of income on March 13, 1997 along with the a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2006 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Data Software Research Co. P. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-27-2006

Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Mad)323; [2007]288ITR289(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1476, 1477 and 1493/Mds/2000 dated 15.6.2005.2. The Revenue is the appellant. The above appeals relate to assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. According to the assessee, the tax audit reports for the relevant assessment years were filed in time along with necessary forms. But, the assessing officer finding that there was no tax audit reports enclosed with the necessary forms and further, finding from the tax returns, which were filed much later, i.e. only on that the audit reports were prepared only on 28.2.97 for the year ending 31.3.1996, 28.2.98 for the year ending 31.3.1997 and 25.2.1999 for the year ending 28.2.98, concluded that the tax audit reports had been reduced to a 'ritualistic exercise' and accordingly, by proceedings dated 24.1.2000, levied penalty under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act.3. In response to the sa...

Tag this Judgment!


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