Chennai Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Central Studios (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR298(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee-company has a studio building. The company was producing pictures in the said studio but it closed down that business of production of pictures before the assessment year 1958-59 and leased out the studio to third parties for production of pictures. It also let out on hire its machineries. In the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1958-59 the assessee sold away all the machineries pertaining to the film production and the studio building was rented to a cotton merchant to be used as a cotton godown. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 the company carried on the business of distribution of pictures and earned income by way of commission on the collections. In the said three years the assessee claimed the following sums as deduction :Rs. 1959-6023,0001960-6122,5001961-6219,7222. The said amounts represented the irrecoverable part of the rent from the producers who had taken the assessee's studio on r...
In Re: A.K. Pandurangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1314; (1973)1MLJ22
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The appellant herein has been convicted under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo regorious imprisonment for one year. 2. The ease of the prosecution is that the appellant herein filed Exhibit P-1 before the Income-tax Officer and induced him, on the strength of Exhibit P-1 to issue an income-tax clearance certificate, dated 30th December, 1967. The said certificate is marked as Exhibit P-2. But for the suppression of the fact that the appellant had no contract business at all, P.W. 1, would not have issued the certificate. Hence, the prosecution has filed the charge sheet under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.3. P.W. 1 who issued the Income-tax Clearance Certificate has categorically stated in the box as follows:Had I known, that the contract amount of the accused for the above years (63 to 68) is four or five lakhs, I would not have issued the income-tax clearance certificate.4. I do not think that there is any difficulty in coming to the...
S.M. Usman Ali and anr. Vs. O.B.V. Kubendra Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad280
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for a declaration of title and possession of the suit properties. The suit properties are of an extent of 2.52 acres of nanja land. The property originally belonged to one Nagoor Ghani Sahib. The plaintiffs are the sons of the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib through his second wife. Under a gift deed dated 3-5-1948 a registration copy of which has been filed and marked as Ex. A-1, Nagoor Ghani Sahib gifted this property to the plaintiffs. On 2-8-1949 the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib executed a mortgage by deposit of title deeds and later on sold the properties to the second defendant under Ex. B-7 dated 10-10-1952. The second defendant is stated to be a benamidar for the first defendant and there is no dispute regarding the same. The plaintiff's case is that their father had no right to convey the property under Ex. B-7 after executing the gift deed under the original of Ex. A-1. The defendants on the other hand contended that the gift was ne...
Papammal (Died) and ors. Vs. K. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad21
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 278 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court. Coimbatore, are the appellants. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that his mother Poovathal had acquired a vested interest in the suit properties under the terms of the will dated 12-12-1929 executed by his maternal grandfather, one Ramana Gounder, that he has inherited the said vested right on the death of his mother and that the will dated 4-8-1964 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as though she had an absolute right over the property was not valid and binding on him.2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the will date 12-12-1929, executed by Ramana Gounder gave an absolute right to the first defendant in the suit properties. that the first defendant could dispose of the same by her will dated 4-8-1964, and that the plaintiff had not acquired any vested interest in the suit properties under the will of Ramana Gounder.3. The trial court held tha...
S.N. Usman Ali and anr. Vs. O.B.V. Kubendra Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ599
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for a declaration of title and possession of the suit properties. The suit properties are an extent of 2.52 acres of nanja land. The property originally belonged to one Nagoor Ghani Sahib. The plamtifis are the sons of the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib through his second wife. Under a gift deed dated 3rd May, 1948 a registration copy of which has been filed and marked as Exhibit A-1, Nagoor Ghani Sahib gifted this property to the plaintiffs. On 2nd August, 1919 the said Nagoor Ghani Sahib executed a mortgage by deposit of title deeds and later on sold the properties to the second defendant imder Exhibit B-7 dated 10th October, 1952. The second defendant is stated to be a benamidar for the first defendant and there is no dispute regarding the same. The plaintiffs' case was that their father had no right to convey the property under Exhibit B-7 after executing the gift deed under the original of Exhibit A-1. The defendant...
Mettur Spinning Mills Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC511(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The disputed turnover before us is a sum of Rs. 1,60,031.16. This said sum represents the value of cotton purchased by the assessee from Volkart Brothers. According to the assessee, the said purchase of cotton was in the course of import. The contention was negatived by the assessing authority, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the contention. The Board of Revenue, however, in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, suo motu set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this regard and restored the order of the assessing authority so far as this turnover is concerned. The question is : whether the view taken by the Board of Revenue that the purchase was not in the course of import is correct.2. The facts, as found by the authorities below and in respect of which there is no dispute, are these : The assessee got an import licence for the import of a special variety of cotton from the United States o...
K.A. Ramachar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC598(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax case, the turnover disputed by the assessee is a sum of Rs. 1,63,843.93. This turnover represents the cost of fabrication, supply and erection of trusses, purlins, etc., made by the assessee in the premises of customers. According to the assessee, the property in the goods fabricated and erected in the customers' places passed by accretion to immovable property and that there has been no outright sale of the goods as fabricated to the customers. The said amount represented 16 transactions of various types. But, it can be taken generally that in all these 16 cases, the assessee undertook to fabricate, supply and erect iron trusses, purlins, etc., at the premises of the customers. The facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that in most of the cases, the various parts of the trusses were fabricated in the assessee's factory, then transported to the workspots, assembled there and erected in accordance with the specification and requirement of the customers. 2. Acc...
S. Devaraj Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR400(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As both the cases raise substantially the same points, they are dealt with together.2. The first case is with reference to an assessment made under the Wealth-tax Act while the other is with reference to an assessment made under the Estate Duty Act. As the questions involved in T.C. No. 49 of 1967 are more comprehensive, we take up that case first for consideration.3. One T.R. Narayanaswami Naidu was the karta of a joint Hindu family. The joint family properties included a building called 'Nataraja Nilayam' constructed in the year 1942 at Palani. It had been set apart for use of pilgrims visiting the town and admittedly the said building was not used for any private purposes of the family. The family properties were partitioned under a partition deed dated March 1, 1950, between the said Narayanaswami Naidu and his adopted son, Rajasekaran, as also minor, Devarajan, the adopted son of his pre-deceased son. Under that partition the building in question was directed to be...
Bhaskara Camphor Works Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC101(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessment challenged in this case relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee, Bhaskar Camphor Works, returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,73,562.25 for the year 1960-61. But the assessing officer did not accept the turnover returned as correct but proceeded to add a turnover of Rs. 59,000, as representing turnover of suppressed sales of camphor, to the taxable turnover returned, on the ground that certain quantities of camphor totalling 1642 lbs. were seized by the Central excise authorities from three premises belonging to the assessee. The camphor so seized by the Central excise authorities was held to belong to the partnership (assessee) and was valued at Rs. 29,500; and the assessing officer added another Rs. 29,500 as undetected purchase suppressions. In all, the assessing officer added to the taxable turnover a sum of Rs. 59,000 and subjected the gross amount to tax at six per cent, on the ground that the turnover represented first sales of camphor ...
R. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors. Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad160; [1973]88ITR386(Mad)
1. One Bheema Naidu died on 25-11-1953, leaving behind him his widow, a widowed daughter-in-law and several grand-children. An account of the estate duty with regard to the property passing on the death of the said Bheema Naidu was furnished by his widow and daughter-in-law as accountable persons under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Madras. The Deputy Controller determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 19,34,884, which included, inter alia, (1) Rs. 1,20,826 representing the deceased's 1/6th share of the goodwill in the managing agency firm of M/s. Rangaswami Naidu and Sons and (2) Rs. 57,168 representing the deceased's one twelfth share of goodwill in the managing agency firm of M/s. R. Bheema Naidu and Co. This was objected to by the accountable persons and they preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 63 of the Act.2. It was contended before the Board that the Deputy Cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »