Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat madras Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.027 seconds)

Aug 17 2001 (TRI)

K.R. Srinath Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Aug-17-2001

Reported in : (2002)80ITD193(Mad.)

..... the appeal proceedings the assessee stated he was awaiting specific performance of the contract, the purchaser was avoiding the same and in the face of possible legal action and on mediation, he agreed to pay rs. 6 lakhs as compensation. the assessee wanted to enforce his right of specific performance by the vendor. that means the assessee gave up his right .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 2001 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner Vs. G.T.C. Enterprises

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Oct-22-2001

Reported in : (2003)87ITD188(Chennai)

1. as these three appeals - two by the revenue for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and one by the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97 in the case of the assessee m/s. g.t.c. international (known as g.t.c. enterprises earlier), chennai, consisted of common issues relating to sections 80hhc, 80-i and 80-ia, the same were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience.2. let us first take up the common issue relating to deduction under section 80hhc of the income-tax act, 1961. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is doing business in excavating mineral quartz from the mine fields and after processing them exports the same to foreign countries in the sizes required by the customers. for the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee-firm returned 'nil' income after claiming deduction under section 80hhc and section 80-i of the income-tax act, 1961. the assessing officer while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the act denied both the deductions, namely, deductions under sections 80hhc and 80-i and assessed the income at rs. 41,01,060. according to the assessing officer as per section 80hhc(2)(b) the minerals and ores other than processed minerals and ores specified in schedule xii are not eligible for deduction under section 80hhc. schedule xii(i) specifically enlists various minerals and ores which are eligible for relief, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2001 (TRI)

Durametallic (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jan-19-2001

Reported in : (2003)81TTJ(Mad.)507

1. in view of the common grounds involved in these two appeals by the same assessee, they are consolidated in a common order for the sake of convenience. these appeals have been filed by the assessee m/s durametallic (india) ltd., karapakkam village, chennai, against the orders passed by the cit(a)-i, madras, for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. the dispute in these appeals is regarding the manner of computation of double income-tax relief under the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between the government of india and the government of singapore. during the previous years relevant for the asst. yrs.1987-88 and 1988-89 the assessee was in receipt of royalty from m/s durametallic asia ltd., singapore. the assessee being a resident, the income by way of royalty from the foreign concern was includible in its total income, on the royalty amount the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-0 of the it act to the extent of 50 per cent of the income so received and brought to india. accordingly, on the balance amount tax was levied under the it act. on the income subjected to tax in india and singapore the assessee is entitled to double income-tax relief in terms of the agreement between the two countries on the amount of singapore tax payable on the income subjected to tax in both countries, but not exceeding that proportion of indian tax which such income bears to the entire income chargeable to indian tax.for the asst. yr. 1987-88 the assessee claimed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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