Chennai Court June 1973 Judgments
Veerasekhara Varmarayar Vs. Amirthavalliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad51
1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 187 of 1965 on the file of the Court, of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of one Duraiswami Varamarayar and his three sons, Chandrasekhara Varamaravar, Gnanasekhara Varamaravar and Veerasekhara Varamarayar, the appellant herein. The father died about ten years prior to the institution of the suit. Thereafter the joint family continued comprising of the three brothers alone. Chandrasekhara died in the year 1964, survived by his widow, the 2nd defendant, and his children, defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. Later in November 1964, Gnanasekhara also died survived by his widow the 1st plaintiff and the only minor daughter the 2nd plaintiff. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs for partition and for recovery of mesne profits. Their case was that in the beginning of 1961, there was a division of the family properties as between the three brothers by the intervention of panchayat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Ouchterloney Valley Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR268(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The case arises under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The assessee in this case was assessed under the said Act for the assessment year 1966-67, and its income for the assessment year was determined at Rs. 11,61,925.78 which was set off against losses of the earlier years. In determining the said income, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer disallowed certain items. In this case we are concerned only with two items, viz i (1) staff and labour bonus to the extent of Rs 1,25,000, and (2) the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80E of the Central Income-tax Act. The disallowance was questioned by the assessee by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim. The revenue. questions the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal in this revision.2. The assessee, for the period ended March 31, 1966, created a provision for payment of bonus to the staff and labourers, relevant to the assessment year, of an amount of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. E.A.N. Abdul Latheef and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC110(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee in this case was assessed on a certain turnover in respect of his dealings in certain commodities. But, only a turnover of Rs. 42,470 was disputed before the Tribunal. The said turnover represented the addition made by the assessing authority to the turnover returned by the assessee on the ground that there were certain defects found in the assessee's accounts. The assessee explained those defects, but the assessing authority did not accept his explanation. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also found that, in fact, the various defects pointed out by the assessing authority have not been duly explained and, therefore, the addition towards the probable suppressions was justified. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal felt that the addition of Rs. 42,470 is not justified, but the addition should be reduced to a turnover of Rs. 15,000. In this view, the Tribunal deleted...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC231(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In the assessment year 1965-66, the assessees in this case sold unsold newspapers and other waste for a turnover of Rs.4,57,747.29. The assessing authority treated the said turnover as taxable and brought it to charge under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. That was questioned by the assessees before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the sale of unsold newspapers and other unserviceable articles as waste or scrap by the assessees could not be treated as sales in the course of their business, and, in that view, it set aside the assessment on the said turnover. Aggrieved against the decision of the Tribunal the State has filed this revision.2. It is contended on behalf of the State that the sales in question of unsold newspapers and other unserviceable materials are clearly connected with the main business of the assessees, which is one of publication and sale of newspapers,...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Santhanagopa'a Chettiar and Ors. Vs. Thimmi M. Seetharama Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ215
N. S. Ramaswami, J.1. The two Letters Patent Appeals are against the Judgment of Ismail, J. disposing of A.A.O. No. 338 of 1965. The appellants in L.P.A. No. 31 of 1969 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 359 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam. The suit is for a declaration that the suit temple belonged to the members of Pattusaluvar community exclusively and that they alone own the temple and worship the deity of the temple and that nobody else had any right in the properties acquired for the said temple. There was also the prayer for accounting by defendants 1 and 2 who had been appointed as trustees for the temple by the Area Committee and approved by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. On the whole, there were six defendants in the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 were the trustees appointed for the temple. The fourth defendant is a lessee of the temple properties. The fifth defendant is the Area Committee and the sixth defen...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Mudaliar Vs. Angaiyarkanni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad194
1. The second defendant in O. S. No. 74 of 1962, on the file of the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge II, Chingleput, is the appellant herein. There were two brothers by name Arunachala Mudaliar and Kandaswami Mudaliar and Arunachala Mudaliar dies on 20-6-1944 leaving behind the plaintiff in the suit, his widow. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of kandaswami Mudaliar. The third defendant is the widow of Kandaswami Mudaliar while the fourth defendant is the daughter of Kandaswami Mudaliar. Kandaswami Mudaliar himself died in the year 1956 leaving behind defendants 1 to 4 as his heirs. One Panchakshara Mudaliar filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 36 of 1946 and a preliminary decree was passed on 12-1-1948, and a final decree was passed on 17-1-1950. The suit properties which are covered by Schedules A to H are the properties that were allotted to the branch of Kandaswami Mudaliar and others in the said suit is O. S. No. 36 of 1946. The A Schedule property is a house property, ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Taylor and Company (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. the Government of Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC391(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioners in all these cases are the same. The assessment years involved are 1959-60 to 1964-65. The petitioners have imported foreign liquor and have sold the same to the various licensees and permit-holders. On their sales of foreign liquor they have collected sales tax under Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, and paid over the same to the State Government. They also paid gallonage fee under Section 18-A of the said Act. They were assessed to sales tax on their sales of foreign liquor in respect of the various assessment years above referred to. Resisting those assessments the petitioners contended that the foreign liquor having been subjected to sales tax under Section 21-A of the Madras Prohibition Act as also a gallonage fee under Section 18-A of that Act, the same cannot again be brought to charge under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, in view of Section 8 read with item 3 of Schedule III of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was als...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanapal Bus Service (P) Limited Vs. K.R. Venkatesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1973
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ15Mad
ORDERRamaprasad Rao, J.1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. T. Ramalingam and M. Mahalingam, advocates for the petitioner, the Court made the following order :2. The two charges framed against respondents 1 and 2, namely, (1) that they indulged in immoral trafficking, and (2) that in the course of their employment, they did not conduct themselves properly, were proved to be unsustainable as held by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras. Having held that the charges were not substantiated, the Labour Court in its discretion directed reinstatement and considered that in its opinion payment of compensation to them would not be an adequate relief. It is against this order of the Labour Court that the present writ petition has been filed.3. The first charge is a very serious one reflecting on the character and morality of the workers, that charge has not been s...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Roy AmIn and Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC586(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that is involved in this case is as to whether the turnover of Rs. 49,590 represented a sale effected by the assessee-company in the course of import or whether it represents a sale after import. The assessee in this case imported certain chemicals and after taking delivery of the same supplied them to a local buyer- M/s. Addison Paints and Chemicals Limited, Madras -- for a sum of Rs. 49,590 during the assessment year 1961-62. According to the assessee the said sum is the turnover of sale in the course of import, but according to the revenue it represents the turnover of a sale after import. For deciding whether the sale in question is actually in the course of import or whether it is a sale after import it is necessary to see the nature of the transactions from the relevant contracts and the correspondence between the assessee and the local buyer. The Tribunal has specifically found on a due consideration of all the materials and the correspondence b...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Venkateswara Roller Flour Mills and Metal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC369(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to a turnover of Rs. 2,43,651, the value of gunnies supplied by the assessees to the Food Corporation of India. The assessees are dealers and manufacturers of wheat products and they also own flour mills. During the assessment year 1965-66, they returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,96,798.85. The assessing authority after a check of their accounts, found that they had supplied gunnies to the Food Corporation of India to the total value of Rs. 2,43,651 and that this turnover had been omitted to be shown in the return submitted by them. The assessing authority after considering the objections filed by the assessees proceeded to treat the said turnover of Rs. 2,43,651 as a taxable turnover, being the value of the gunnies said to have been sold by the assessees to the Food Corporation of India. The inclusion of the said turnover was questioned by the assessees by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, sus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »