Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat chennai Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.054 seconds)

Jul 26 2005 (TRI)

Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range Ii

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : (2005)97ITD291(Chennai)

these appeals are filed by different assessees. since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. in these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-97 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.the only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their shareholdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.the briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31-3-1996, had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in m/s. lakshmi mills ltd. and lakshmi card clothing co. ltd. to the family members of shri g.k. sundaram. the assessees in regard to these transfers had submitted as under: "the assessee has transferred icc and imc shares and converted into vijayeswari textiles ltd. share. in this connection we beg to submit the following: shri k. rajagopal and his family members are part of the lakhsmi group of families, certain companies were managed and controlled by the families of sri g.k. sundaram and sri k. rajagopal, jointly subsequent to certain family arrangement in which certain companies were allotted for the control and management of sri g.k. devarajulu. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2005 (TRI)

Kay Arr Enterprises Vs. the Jt. Commissioner of I.T.,

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : (2005)279ITR163(Chennai)

1. these appeals are filed by different assessees. since common issue is involved in these appeals and the assessees are of the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. in these three appeals of the assessees, the relevant assessment year involved is 1996-96 pertaining to the financial year 1995-96.2. the only common issue in these appeals is that as to whether, in view of family arrangement as arrived at by the assessees to rearrange their share holdings to avoid possible litigation among themselves will attract capital gain or not and whether it is a transfer or not.3. the briefly stated facts are that the assessees, along with their family members in the previous year ended 31.3.1996 had transferred shares owned by the assessees and family members in m/s. lakshmi mills ltd. and lakshmi card clothing co. ltd. to the family members of shri g.k. sundaram. the assessees in regard to these transfers had submitted as under: "the assessee has transferred icc and imc shares and converted into vijayeswari textiles ltd. share. in this connection we beg to submit the following: shri k. rajagopal and his family members are part of the lakshmi group of families, certain companies were managed and controlled by the families of sri g.k. sundaram and sri k. rajagopal, jointly subsequent to certain family arrangement in which certain companies were allotted for the control and management of sri g.k. devarajulu. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2005 (TRI)

Binny Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cwt, Central Circle Ii(4)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : May-30-2005

Reported in : (2005)96ITD500(Chennai)

these are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue and most of the issues involved are common. therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows: (i) whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? (ii) whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the wealth tax act? (i) whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth-tax? the brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to board of industrial financial reconstruction (in short bifr) under section 15 of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act in may, 1993. it seems that properties were pledged with financial institutions and banks and some restrictions were imposed by the bifr for alienation of the properties. these properties consisted of factory buildings and vacant land appurtenant thereto, guest houses with land appurtenant thereto and vacant lands.according to the learned ar, number of schemes were sanctioned by bifr from time to time. to rehabilitate the company and under such schemes directions were given to the promoters .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2005 (TRI)

Binny Limited Vs. the Acwt, Jt. Cwt, Special Range Vi

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : May-30-2005

Reported in : (2006)280ITR179(Chennai)

1. these are cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue and most of the issues involved are common. therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. before we proceed to decide individual appeals, we would like to note that principally there are three main issues for our adjudication and we think once these issues are determined, the appeals can be easily decided. therefore, we proceed to examine these principal issues, which are as follows :- i) whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? ii) whether deduction of debt claimed is permissible under the provisions of the wealth-tax act? (i) whether properties owned by the assessee company can be charged to wealth tax? 3. the brief facts of the case are that assessee is a sick industrial company and the company made a reference to board of industrial financial reconstruction (in short bifr) under section 15 of the sick industrial companies (special provision) act in may, 1993. it seems that properties were pledged with financial institutions and banks and some restrictions were imposed by the bifr for alienation of the properties. these properties consisted of factory buildings and vacant land appurtenant thereto, guest houses with land appurtenant thereto and vacant lands.4. according to the ld. ar, number of schemes were sanctioned by bifr from time to time to rehabilitate the company and under such schemes directions were given to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 2005 (TRI)

Dy. Cit, Special Range Ii Vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jul-13-2005

Reported in : (2006)7SOT309(Chennai)

i.t.a. no. 1341/97 is filed by the revenue for the assessment year 1994-95 and i.t.a. nos. 278/(mad.)/95, 1257 and 2165 (mad.)/96 and 804 (mad.)/97 are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1988-89, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively. since common issue arises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.let us first take the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1988-89 in i.t.a. no. 278 1 (mad.)/95. the first issue is regarding deduction under section 32ab of the income tax act. mr. r. vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer set off the carried forward unabsorbed investment allowance and thereafter rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no positive profit for grant of deduction under section 32ab.according to the learned counsel, deduction under section 32ab should be computed before setting off of carried forward unabsorbed investment allowance.on the contrary, mr. k. srinivasan, the learned departmental representative submitted that deduction under section 32ab could be allowed on the income computed as per provisions of sections 28 to 32a.therefore, the carried forward investment allowance has to be first set off before grant of deduction under section 32ab. once the carried forward investment allowance was set off there is no business income for the assessee for grant of deduction under section 32ab, therefore .....

Tag this Judgment!


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