Chennai Court June 1972 Judgments
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. R. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad1
1. The main question referred to us is whether the document, dated 27th May, 1958, purporting to be an affidavit by the respondent and other members of the joint family really constitutes a conveyance within the scope of Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act read with Article 23 of that Act.Rajagopala Chettiar got a document registered on a stamp paper of Rs. 3 declaring that the properties belonging to him had been transferred to the Raja Rice and Oil Mills Limited, a private company. The document bore No. 2868 of 1956. He presented another document of 27th May, 1958, which also purported to be an affidavit by his sons and other members of the family. The earlier document contained, so far as is material to us, the following recital:The said undertaking has since been promoted as Raja Rice and Oil Mills Ltd. Since the registration of the said undertaking, I have also transferred possession of such lands to the said Raja Rice aid Oil Mills Ltd. and the patta for such lands has also been issue...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR695(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The quest-ion referred to us for our decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows ;' Whether the refusal to grant registration to the assessee-firm on the basis of the document dated October 1, 1961, was justified ?'2. The assessee, claiming to be a partnership firm, applied for registration under Section 184 of the Act and claimed that the partnership has been formed with effect from October 1, 1961, and produced the relevant document of partnership before the Income-tax Officer. But, it was found that though the document is purported to have been executed on October 1, 1961, the stamp papers on which the document has been written bore the date October 20, 1961. When this discrepancy was noted, a rectification deed (styled as a codicil) dated January 19, 1965, was executed by the partners to the following effect:' Whereas it has now been brought to our notice that we have attested the partnership deed un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Ajmeer Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR613(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The question that has-been referred in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to the grant of registration for the assessment year 1963-64 under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessee-firm consisted of four partners. Though the partnership deed was executed on January 3, 1962, it commenced its business actually on December 14, 1961. By an application dated March 12, 1963, theassessee applied to the Income-tax Officer for registration of the firm under Section 185. Though the Income-tax Officer refused registration on various grounds, the only ground that survived before the Appellate Tribunal was that the original partnership deed was tampered with by the substitution of one page which provided for the closing of the accounts of the firm on March 31, 1963. The In...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. M. Rajeswari Vedachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR753(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Smt. Rajeswari Vedachalam was entitled to claim depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for, the assessment year 1960-61 in respect of the assets used in the partnership business (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to claim depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1960-63 to 1961-64 on the assets used in the partnership business ?' 2. The circumstances under which the reference has been made are these : 3. Smt. Rajeswari Vedachalam who became the absolute owner of the capital, deposits, outstandings and other properties in th...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue Vs. R. Thirt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ361
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The main question referred to us is whether the document, dated 27th May, 1958, purporting to be an affidavit by the respondent and other members of the joint family really constitutes a conveyance within the scope of Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act read with Article 23 of that Act.Rajagopala Chettiar got a document registered on a stamp paper of Rs. 3 declaring that the properties belonging to him had been transferred to the Raja Rice and Oil Mills Limited, a private company. The document bore No. 2868 of 1956. He presented another document of 27th May, 1958, which also purported to be an affidavit by his sons and other members of the family. The earlier document contained, so far as is material to us, the following recital:The said undertaking has since been promoted as Raja Rice and Oil Mills Ltd. Since the registration of the said undertaking, I have also transferred possession of such lands to the said Raja Rice aid Oil Mills Ltd. and the patta for such l...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Pillai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad68
ORDER1. The only point that is raised by Mr. Parasaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the authorities below were in error in including 15.97 acres, which were settled in the name of Jayalakshmi, who got married on 28-5-1961, i.e., after the commencement of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, and before the notified date. The question for consideration is whether this extent has to be included within the ceiling area of Rajagopala Pillai, the father of Jayalakshmi.Section 7 of the Act provides that on and from the date of the commencement of this Act, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. In other words, no person is permitted to hold land in excess of the ceiling area on the date of the commencement of the Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act. Section 8 of the Act requires furnishing of return by person holdi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pavanasa Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR552(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the original assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60 under Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is correct in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the income of the house property and of the business of Palaniappa Match Works for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61 in the hands of the assessee in the status of an individual is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee was originally a member of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his brother and his father, which carried on business in the manufacture of match sticks under the name and style of National Match Works, Sivakasi. After the death of the assessee's father, he and his brother became divided in respect of the said business, which was thereafter carr...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Nallaperumal Vs. P.R. Muthaiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ541
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 182 of 1972 rejecting the preliminary ground raised in the said petition that the offence might fall under Section 182 I.P.C. and not under Section 211 I.P.C. From the averments in the complaint it is seen that the present petitioner (Nellaperumal) sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, at Palayamcottai falsely charging the complainant with having intimidated him and threatened to shoot him with a revolver in his possession. Mr. Martin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the language of Section 211 would require the registration of the complaint, investigation following the registration of the first information report and a referred notice to the complainant Nellaperumal. I do not think that there is any warrant or basis for such an argument in the light of the terms of Section 211 I.P.C. All that this section ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, by the Collector of South Ar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ507
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The only point that is raised by Mr. Parasaran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities below were in error in including 15.97 acres, which were settled in the name of Jayalakshmi, who got married on 28th May, 1961, i.e., after the commencement of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land), Act, 1961 and before the notified date. The question for consideration is whether this extent has to be included within the ceiling area of Rajagopala Pillai, the father of Jayalakshmi. Section 7 of the Act provides that on and from the date of the commencement of this Act, no person shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. In other words, no person is permitted to hold land in excess of the ceiling area on the date of the commencement of the Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act. Section 8 of the Act requires furnishing of ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sathiapal Vs. the Pandiyan Brick Works and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad53
1. This suit is for the recovery of a sum or Rs. 86,000, odd with interest at 6 per cent. per annum towards the contract executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an Engineering Contractor, and he entered into an agreement with the defendant, which is a partnership firm, to construct a brick kiln. The brick kiln has been completed. But some of the bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants have not been paid for. Hence the present suit.2. The defence to the suit is that the plaintiff has not constructed the brick kiln according to the specifications contained in the agreement between the parties, that there are a number of defects in the construction and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount. The defendant filed an additional written statement elaborating the above plea and giving details of the various alleged defects in the brick kiln and also valuing those defects. The additional written statement sums up the position stating that the defects in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »