Chennai Court April 1973 Judgments
Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR703(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J., - The assessee in this case claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000 spent as stock exchange listing fee, as a deduction under the provisions of section 5 (e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment for the year 1966-67. The assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the said claim of the assessee. On appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the said sum, so far as it is referable to the cultivation of tea, should have been allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal held that even in respect of the tea income, the stock exchange listing fee referable to that income cannot be allowed as a deduction, for the reason that the payment has nothing to do with the earning of the tea income. Before the Tribunal, it was also submitted by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 1,220 out of the said sum of Rs. 2,000 has been allocated to the tea income and that in the income-tax assessment, the assessee has been ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC649(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. There are two items of turnovers, which are in dispute in this case. The first item, Rs. 66,492.09 relating to the assessment year 1964-65, is claimed by the assessee as sales discount liable to be deducted from the taxable turnover. The second item relates to a sum of Rs. 14,089.61 representing the turnover of canteen sales, which, according to the assessee, cannot be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.2. So far as the first item is concerned, the assessee's claim for exemption on the ground that it represented the sales discount did not find favour with the assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the said claim was accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that the said sum is liable to be exempted as sales discount under Clause (iii) of explanation (2) to Section 2(r) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with Rule 5-A(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. Before us, the revenue questions the correctness of t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. S.J. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC197(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a partner in a firm called Surajmals. There was a surprise inspection of the business premises of Surajmals as well as the residence of the assessee on 4th September, 1964. During that inspection, certain slips, account books and other records had been recovered. The said records disclosed that the assessee must have had an independent business of his own, apart from his being a partner in Surajmals. Subsequent to the said inspection resulting in the discovery of the said anamath records from the residence of the assessee, there was an enquiry by the intelligence wing and the assessee was asked to produce the books relating to the said independent business. The assessee appeared once or twice, but he did not produce the account books relating to the said business. As a matter of fact, at every stage when he appeared before the authorities, he asked for time to produce the records. Ultimately, the intelligence wing sent a report as to the di...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Sakthi and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC458(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The disputed turnover in this case is a sum of Rs. 88,494.33. The above turnover relating to the assessment year 1965-66 was claimed by the assessee as intra-State sales. But the assessing authority considered the said turnover to be inter-State sales of automobile parts. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the said sum represented the second sales of automobile parts effected within the State of Madras which are exempted, and he questioned the finding of the assessing authority that the said sum represented inter-State sales. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner however upheld the view of the assessing authority that the sales in question were inter-State sales. 2. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee took an additional point apart from the points urged before the authorities below. He contended that even if the sales are taken as inter-State sales, in view of the principle laid down by the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Badhra Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC189(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee, a spinning mill, had its head office at Bangalore and a branch office at Tiruppur. For the year 1964-65, the assessee's branch office at Tiruppur filed monthly returns showing an aggregate turnover of Rs. 2,71,505.60 for the whole year representing first sales of cotton yarn. The assessing officer called for and checked the accounts produced by the assessee in support of its returns. The turnover shown in the monthly returns was found to be in accord with the entries found in the books of account maintained by the branch office. But the assessing authority, on verification of the accounts of certain cotton dealers in Tiruppur, found that they had sold cotton to the assessee and given delivery of the goods at Tiruppur. As the assessing officer felt that the sales of cotton to the assessee-mills had been completed by giving delivery at Tiruppur, the assessee, as the last purchaser of cotton within the State, was liable to tax under the provisions of the Tami...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sk. Ar. K. Ar. Somasundaram Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR832(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transactions resulting in the loss of Rs. 2,04,746 in the previous year, relevant for the assessment year 1960-61 and in the loss of Rs. 17,000 in the assessment year 1961-62 were saved from being treated as speculative transactions by Clause (a) of the third proviso to Section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm, carrying on business in cloth and yarn, and having its head office in Madurat and two branches, one in Vijayanagaram and another in Calcutta. Its main business consisted of purchase and sale of gada, manufactured by the Meenaksbi Mills Ltd., Virudhunagar Textiles Ltd., Loyal Textiles Ltd., Kodandarama Mills, etc. In the previous year ending April 12, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 2,04,746 as against ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rengaswami Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR24(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a 'resident but not ordinarily resident' person. He carried on business in real properties in Penang. In the previous year ending on December 31, 1957, he sold two rubber estates for $ 14,89,980 as against his actual cost of $ 13,00,000, leaving a gross surplus of $ 1,89,980. He had made the following remittances to the taxable territories during the year :DateAmountRs.27-4-195715,470.25 3-5-195715,029.7512-5-195715,000.0012-6-195715,000.0025-6-195715,400.0014-8-1957 500.0016-9-195730,950.0018-9-1957 8,625.001,62,400.00 or$ 1,04,7742. The assesses contended that the above remittances were not taxable, as they were not remitted out of profits and that the profit on sales of the estates could be ascertained only when all the estates purchased by him had been completely sold. The Income-tax Officer rejected these contentions holding that there was actually a surplus of $ 1,43,754 by the sale of the two rubber estates after setting off of $ 46,226, the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thirumani Mudaliar (by Lrs.) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR152(Mad)
R. Amanujam, J.1. One Palaniappa Mudaliar owned considerable movable and immovable properties. He died on June 14, 1937, leaving behind him his only son Pichai alias Shanmugasundaram. The deceased had executed a will on 4th March, 1936, under which the following persons have been appointed as executors :1. M. Tirumani Mudaliar 2. P. N. V. Palaniappan 3. P. M. P, Muthukumarappa Mudaliar 4. Veerabhadra Mudaliar 5. S. Palaniappa 6. S. R. Veerappan 2. The will, after providing for certain specific legacies, directed the executors to divide and distribute equally the residue among the aurasa of Pichai living at the time of his death. Up to the assessment year 1959-60 income-tax assessments had been made on the executors, hereinafter referred to as the assesses, in the status of an ' association of persons '. In respect of the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62, a notice under Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was served on the assesses, calling for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR122(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of yarn. Its managing agents are M/s. Thiagaraja Chetty and Company Ltd. One M. S. Chocka-lingam Chettiar was the secretary of the company till first November 1, 1959. From first November, 1959, he was appointed as general manager of the assessee-company by the board of directors to be in overall charge of the mills. The remuneration paid by the company to the said Chockalingam Chettiar as general manager for the years ending March 31, 1960, March 31, 1961, arid March 31, 1962, relevant for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 were Rs. 14,706, Rs. 31,875 and Rs. 31,875, respectively. His salary as secretary up to October 30, 1959, was included in the remuneration of the managing agents. The assessee-company claimed the above amounts paid as remuneration to the said general manager after November 1, 1959, as expenditure coming under Section 10(2)(xv) of the...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Kasthuriswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR145(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One G. Venkataswami Naidu died on July 5, 1957. The accountable person had declared the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 2,03,446. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, however, determined the value of the estate at Rs. 7,22,994. While determining that value he valued the shares of Messrs. Janardana Mills Ltd. held by the deceased and the firm of Messrs. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. of which the deceased was a partner at Rs. 140 against the market quotation of Rs. 87 per share in the Madras Stock Exchange on the date of the death of the deceased. He also valued the managing agency rights of Messrs. G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. at Rs, 10,00,000 and fixed the deceased's 1/4th share therein at Rs. 2,50,000. The additions in respect of these two items were questioned by the accountable persons by filing an appeal before the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 2. Before the Board, it was contended that the 500 shares which were owned by the deceased individ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »