Chennai Court December 1972 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Janab M.M. Sultan Ibrahim Adhum Vs. Wealth-tax Officer 1(1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR417(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. These two writ petitions are for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to call for the records and quash the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer, Karaikudi, in his proceedings G.I.No. 1941-S/WT 1968-69 dated August 24, 1970, and 1941-S/WT 1969-70 dated August 24, 1970. In respect of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1569-70 the petitioner filed his return of wealth on May 27, 1970, admitting a net wealth of Rs. 1,97,101 and Rs. 2,09,737, respectively. The assessment was completed on June 22, 1970, under section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on the total wealth of Rs. 1,97,101 and Rs. 2,09,737. The wealth-tax demanded for 1968-69 and 1969-70 was Rs. 286 and Rs. 328, respectively. For late filing of the returns, a notice under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act was issued to the assessee on June 22, 1970. In his reply dated July 7, 1970, the petitioner represented that the firms in which he was a partner took their own time ...
A.M. Sali Maricar and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR116(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In these two writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is challenged. The petitioners are different but identical contentions have been raised. In the first case for the assessment year 1968-69 the petitioner filed on April 18, 1969, a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 51,350. The tax payable thereon under Section 140A(1) was Rs. 15,506. Since the petitioner did not pay the tax within thirty days of furnishing the return as required under Section 140A(1), a notice under Section 140A(3) was issued to him to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner filed a written reply on October 28, 1969, stating that his funds were locked up in the business and that, therefore, the tax could not be paid in accordance with that section. But the Income-tax Officer rejected his explanation on the ground that the petitioner was showing large cash balance in his wealth-tax ret...
Neelacanta Pillai and ors. Vs. Chellian Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ295
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The respondents in E. P. No. 835 of 1959 are the appellants herein. E.P.No. 835 of 1959 was filed by the judgment-debtor defendant for re-delivery of the property under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code . That petition was dismissed by the trial Court and on appeal, it was ordered. This appeal is against the order directing re-delivery.2. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated.3. The suit O.S. No. 642 of 1956 was filed on 22nd November, 1956 for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. On 26th June, 1958, the suit was decreed fixing the arrears of rent at Rs. 45.10 As. and future rent at the rate of Rs. 70 per annum, which was modified on appeal fixing the future rent at Rs. 42. In other respects, the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. In purusance of the decree, the decree-holders obtained an order of delivery on 27th September, 1958 and delivery was in fact effected on 3rd October, 1958. On 17th October, 1958, the judgm...
Manjunatha Rai Vs. the Board of Revenue
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad343; (1973)1MLJ390
1. The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to state a case under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act on the questions of law in the Board's order dated 13-5-1971. The petitioner's case in that, in 1947 he purchased a property of an extent of 27 grounds with buildings thereon in Madras, for a substantial consideration., a part of which was provided for by his wife, as is demonstrable by the various events that took place at or about the time of the purchase of the property for securing the sale price. It is said that the petitioner's wife mortgaged her own property and contributed towards the price of the property. In or about 1970 the petitioner decided to relinquish and release his interests over a portion of the said property, viz., an extent of ten grounds which, ever since the purchase, was in the possession of the petitions wife and who, with her own funds, did put up a superstructure thereon as well. In order to confirm and confer a better t...
J.K.K. Angappan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR397(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from recovering the amount of the annuity deposit for the assessment year 1965-66 under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of his notice of demand dated March 22, 1970.2. For the assessment year 1965-66 the respondent passed an assessment order dated March 23, 1970, in the petitioner's case under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In that order the taxable income of the petitioner was computed at Rs. 4,98,700 after giving deduction of Rs. 71,130 towards annuity deposit payable by him under Section 280. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 8,610 as annuity deposit during the year and deducting the said sum, a demand had been issued on March 22, 1970, for the balance of the annuity deposit of Rs. 62,520 in Form 37B under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 48A(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The petitioner has challenged the validity of that demand in this wr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R. Chockalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR380(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. In this, writ petition the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, has prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to take up the department appeal in I.T.A. No. 6953/53-54 (R.A. No. 714/54-55) and rehear the appeal under Section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and decide the appeal in conformity with the judgment of this court dated November 24, 1959, rendered in R.C. No. 75/ 57. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this writ petition are the legal representatives of one M. R. M. Perianna Chettiar (deceased), hereinafter called the assessee, and the 3rd respondent is the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Though the relief asked for is a mandamus directing the Tribunal to rehear the appeal, in effect it was for a declaration that the Tribunal's order dated August 22, 1960, made under Section 66(5) of the Act was not in conformity with the order of this court in R.C,...
J.K.K. Angappan and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR513(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioners made a voluntary disclosure of income under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. The tax payable on the income so voluntarily disclosed amounted to Rs. 15,55,500. The said tax was due to be paid on or before November 30,1965, under the said section. However, the tax was not paid before the said date. Subsequently, the petitioners offered to pay the said tax but the Commissioner of Income-tax declined to receive the same on the ground that the time for payment was long over. The petitioners thereafter moved the Central Board of Direct Taxes but it also declined to give any direction to the Commissioner of Income-tax toreceive the said tax. The Commissioner thereafter issued directions to the assessing authority to proceed with the assessment of the firm as well as the partners taking into account the income disclosed in their voluntary returns. At that stage, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this court challenging the validity of the said dire...
A.K. Ranganatham and Sons (Private) Limited Vs. the Government of Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC60(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These two tax cases have been filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) and relate to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioners disputed the turnover of Rs. 5,94,244.96 taxed at 2 per cent, on the ground that the receipt of that amount was towards works contract for the manufacture and supply of bricks by the petitioners to the High Pressure Boiler Plant Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project Administration) at Tiruvarambur. On the same ground for the assessment year 1965-66, the petitioners disputed the liability to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 10,51,330.27. For both these assessment years the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore Division, held that the amounts represented the value of the bricks supplied by the petitioners to the Project Administration and the transaction was a sale liable to levy of sales tax under the Act. The Appellate Assistant ...
Soundramman Textiles and ors. Vs. the Collector of Customs, Customs Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ413
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of Writs of mandamus directing the respondents--Collector of Customs and the Union of India to refund the countervailing duty collected from the different petitioners in respect of import of art silk yarn from various countries under the licences issued to them. The petitioners in these writ petitions had imported various quantities of art silk yarn during the period from 1st April, 1961 to 31st December, 1964. In respect of these imports they were called upon to pay customs duty and also countervailing duty and the same were paid by them as demanded. It is not necessary to set out the particular amounts paid by each of the petitioners on accounts of countervailing duty. In these petitions a common question has been raised as to the validity of the levy of countervailing duty, though the amounts involved in each one of those cases are different.2. The import itself was, as already stated, prior to 31st December, 1964. The countervail...
Sri-la-sri Ayapanateswara Pandara Sannadhi and ors. Vs. the Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad181
1. The question which arises in these matters is whether the Commissioner, in appointing non-hereditary trustees to the institutions concerned, should follow the procedure under Section 47 (2) of Madras Act XXII of 1959. It is not in dispute that these institutions are governed by a scheme of administration settled by Court which makes provision for appointment of two non-hereditary trustees along with the hereditary trustee who is the Madathipathy. Section 1 (a) of Madras Act XIX of 1951 provided that, notwithstanding the repeal of Madras Act II of 1927, schemes settled shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Act, be deemed to have been made by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of the Act, and shall, subject to the provisions of clause (b), have effect accordingly. We are not here concerned with clause (b). The effect of this provision was, by adopting schemes settled by courts to schemes by the appropriate authority under the corresponding pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »