Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-07-1985
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Mad)240; 157ITR816(Mad)
..... and 1971-72, the tribunal is not right in holding that the commissioner was not justified in issuing a notice proposing to revise the order of the income-tax officer. in this view, the first question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. 4. coming to the second question ..... that the revenue has not accepted the decision of the tribunal is not a ground for ignoring the same and proceeding to revise the order of the income-tax on the basis that the tribunal's decision is not correct. however, having regard to the fact that the decision of the tribunal in respect ..... tribunal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on identical issues even though not accepted by the department and which decision was available to the income-tax officer before he completed the assessment 2. if the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the tribunal was right, on the ..... the tribunal was of the view that the commissioner was in error in proceeding on the basis that the order of the income-tax officer holding that only 1/7th share income of the firm is includible in the hands of the assessee is prejudicial to the revenue cannot be sustained as the decision of ..... proceedings cannot be sustained and in that view it set aside the revisional order of the commissioner and sustained the order of the income-tax officer holding that only 1/7th share income of the firm should be included in the hands of the assessee. aggrieved by the order of the tribunal with reference to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1985
Reported in : 60STC125(Mad)
..... etc. it is stated that certain ta reliefs are given under sections 80j and 80hh of the indian income-tax act. they are also entitled to a special depreciation under section 32(1)(v) of the income-tax act. therefore, according to the learned advocate-general, such hotels are a class by themselves and they stand on ..... on the sale of goods and not on the income of a dealer. the other decision is in k. m. mohamed abdul khader firm v. state of tamil nadu ..... that a taxation law is not entitled to claim immunity from the equality clause in the constitution of india (see khandige sham bhat v. agricultural income-tax officer, kasaragod air 1963 sc 591). it is also well established that whenever the state makes any classification and groups together certain persons or things .....  58 stc (12) where a similar act which amended the additional sales tax act, 1970 by providing for a different method of computation of the additional sales tax leviable under that act by ..... tax was not a tax on the sale of goods but was a tax on the income of the dealer. the first decision is in s. kodar v. state of kerala : 1scr121 in which it was held that the additional ta levied under the tamil nadu additional sales tax act (14 of 1970) was really a tax .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1985
Reported in : 17ITD305(Mad)
..... accounting period ended 31-8-1977 was completed on 24-7-1981. the assessment was made under the provisions of section 143(3), read with section 144b, of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act), i.e., after reference to the iac and on due consideration of the directions issued by him. we would set out certain facts. the assessment order insofar as the ..... not a case where there was merely an appeal pending before the first appellate authority. the case puthuthotam estates (1943) ltd. (supra) is a case under a tamil nadu agricultural income-tax act, 1955, which deals with provisions akin to section 264 and not the provisions of section 263, which are now under consideration. therefore, the ratio of that case also does not ..... acting under section 33b of the 1922 act, cancelled the order of the ito filing the proceedings and directed him to continue proceedings under section 34 ..... in support of the aforesaid proposition had relied on a judgment of the punjab and haryana high court in cit v. damyanti mehta and yash raj mehta . that was a case in which proceedings under section 34(1) (a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (the 1922 act) were initiated but the ito dropped the proceedings by his order proceedings filed. the commissioner thereafter .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1985
Reported in : 159ITR670(Mad)
..... that any machinery which runs on electricity would constitute 'other electrical machinery' found in item iii(iii) e-3(b) of column i, part i of appendix i to the income-tax rules, 1962, is sustainable in law ?' 2. from the questions referred to above, it will be clear that the dispute between the parties is as to whether the offset machinery ..... 'other electrical machinery' occurring in item iii(iii) e-3(b) of column i, part i of appendix i to the income-tax rules, 1962, so as to enable the assessee to claim depreciation at the rate of 10%. the income-tax officer has proceeded on the basis' that since the offset machinery cannot generate electricity, it will not fall within the expression 'other ..... ramanujam, j.1. the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the income-tax appellate tribunal at the instance of the revenue : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was ..... the view taken by the tribunal in this case could be accepted as tenable. this view taken by the tribunal was the subject matter of a batch of tax cases before this court in cit v. m. s. sahadevan : 123itr820(mad) and this court has disagreed with the view taken by the tribunal. as a matter of fact, in that case .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-06-1985
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Mad)104; 157ITR112(Mad)
..... the jurisdiction of the commissioner under section 263 of the income-tax act. the tribunal, however, did not agree with the commissioner that the assessee can be denied relief in respect of the said expenditure straightaway without further enquiry with reference to ..... of attack had been rejected by the tribunal. the tribunal held that the commissioner was justified in invoking his original jurisdiction under section 263 of the income-tax act as the grant of relief by the income-tax officer in relation to air freight, insurance and carriage of goods without verifying the facts is prejudicial to the revenue and that is sufficient to sustain ..... order of the commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal to the tribunal contending that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question under section 263 of the income-tax act and that even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred on air freight, insurance and carriage of goods will be eligible for ..... and also on commission paid in india on export sales which are not eligible for allowance, issued a show-cause notice on march 1, 1983, under section 263 of the income-tax act, proposing to revise the assessment and calling upon the assessee to show cause against such proposal. the assessee filed his representation on february 14, 1983, stating that the allowance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-1985
Reported in : 182ITR355(Mad)
..... calculating the calculating the cost of investments for the application of rule 2 of the second scheduled to the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964, for the assessment year 1971-72 ' 2 ..... the purpose of surtax and not the dividend income for 1971-72 and 1972-73 and 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in directing the income-tax officer to exclude the sum of rs. 2,45,000 for ..... referred to this court for its opinion by the income-tax appellate tribunal at the instance of the revenue : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the gross dividend income should be deducted while computing the chargeable profits for ..... answered against the revenue and it is answered accordingly. 3. coming to the second question, it is also covered by the decision of this court in addl. cit v. madras motor and general insurance co. ltd. : 117itr354(mad) , which is against the revenue. therefore, the second question is also answered against ..... . so far as the first question is concerned, we find that it is covered by a decision rendered by this court in t.c. nos. 1196 to 1198 of 1977, dated october 6, 1983 (cit v. sundaram industries (p.) ltd. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-13-1985
Reported in : 1986(7)ECC10; 1985(5)LC2320(Madras); 1985(22)ELT17(Mad)
..... before the tribunal, but that was rejected as out of time. the question was whether a revision could be filed under section 33a of the income-tax act, against the order of the appellate assistant commissioner which has been made the subject of an effective appeal before the tribunal. the said decision squarely ..... ground that it is filed after the prescribed time, the order cannot be said to be the subject of an appeal as, section 33a of the income-tax act excluded, from the purview of revisional powers, orders which have been made the subject of an appeal before the appellate tribunal. there also, an ..... occurring in section 130. 6. in more or less similar circumstances, this court in srinivasalu naidu v. commissioner of income tax - : 16itr341(mad) dealing with the scope of section 33a of the income-tax act, held that the expression 'made the subject of an appeal' occurring in that section should be understood as the ..... - 45 stc 109 fb, had to consider the scope of suo motu powers of revision contained in section 32 of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959. sect. 32 conferred on the deputy commissioner a power of revision in respect of orders passed by any subordinate authority, except in respect of ..... yarn stores v. state of madras, 14 stc 724. in that case, the scope of section 34(2)(b) of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, 1959 was considered. that decision also contained an exclusion in respect of orders which have been made the subject of an appeal. there also, it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1985
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(Mad)244; 167ITR884(Mad)
..... the circumstances of the case, that and having regard to the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the income-tax act, 1961, the appellate tribunal was right in deleting 30% of the technical services fees treating it as income arising in india and in taxing the assessee foreign company ?' 2. however, we find on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the question ..... the central government as early as on may 3, 1974. the income-tax officer did not accept this claim but proceeded to treat 30% of the amount paid to the ..... the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79. the assessee claimed before the income-tax officer that the payment was for the services rendered by the technical personnel and, therefore, it was exempt by virtue of the proviso to section 9(1)(vii) of the income-tax act inasmuch as the licensing and technical assistance agreement between the two companies was approved by ..... the technical fee paid was as a result of the business connection and, therefore, 30% of the amount has rightly been taxed by the income-tax officer, even though as per section 9(1)(vii) which was inserted by the finance act of 1976 with effect from june 1, 1976, no portion of the technical fees paid could be brought to charge there-under .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-26-1985
Reported in : 157ITR467(Mad)
..... , therefore, it should be allowed a claimed by the assessee. aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal, reference was sought for under section 256(1) of the income-tax act. b that was rejected. the revenue has filed this application under section 256(2). 3. the learned counsel for the revenue makes a two-fold contention. one ..... ramanujam, j. 1. in this petition filed under section 256(2) of the income-tax act by the revenue, a direction is sought for referring the following question for the opinion of this court : 'whether, on the facts and in the ..... . on appeal, the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) held that the assessee having decided to write off the amount due to it only in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, it ..... provisions and other articles dealt with by the stores. the assessee claimed the said sum of rs. 60,000 as a business loss. that was disallowed by the income-tax officer on the ground that the loss was for the year ending with december 31, 1973, and hence it is not admissible for the assessment year 1976-77 ..... said question need be given in this case. the assessee in this case is a manufacturer of sugar. while completing the assessment for the year 1976-77, the income-tax officer disallowed a sum of rs. 60,000 being the amount given to the employees' co-operative stores which could not be recovered. the said employees' co .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-28-1985
Reported in : 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!