Chennai Court September 1973 Judgments
S.S. Rajabathar Vs. N.A. Sayeed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad289
1. The plaintiff is O. S. 767 of 1967 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram, who lost before the courts below, is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The respondent herein entered into an agreement with one Namperumal Naidu under Ex. B-1 dated 4-9-1958 for purchase of the suit property; Namperumal Naidu having failed to execute the sale deed, the respondent instituted O. S. 41 of 1959, on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, against the said Namperumal Naidu for specific performance of Ex. B-1 agreement. The suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, as evidenced by Ex. A-8, dated 25-3-1960, being a certified copy of the decree therein. The respondent took up the matter in appeal to the learned District Judge, Chingleput and the learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 8-12-1960, reversed the conclusion of the learned District Munsif and decreed the suit for specific performance instituted by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1973
Reported in: [1976]104ITR337(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee herein is a public limited company incorporated in 1945, under the name of Messrs. The Magnesite Corporation of India Limited, which later merged with Messrs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, the respondent herein. The assessee owned 2,500 acres of magnesite bearing land in Salem District. In 1947, it was felt that there was a great demand for calcined ore, i.e., ore heated in a rotary kiln up to 900C to 1000C. The assessee mined the ore and sold them as such or after calcining them during the period from 1945 to 1956. In the course of those operations, the assessee incurred losses during that period.2. In 1955, the assessee leased out the mines for a period of 5 years to one Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Limited. The lessee undertook the mining operations in respect of the magnesite ore and dispose of them. But subsequently, taking note of the potential demand for raw magnesite, the assessee-company sought the cancellation of the lease granted in f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.A.E.T. Sundararaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR226(Mad); [1974]34STC90(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case carried on business in the manufacture and sale of fireworks. He maintained a separate account for collections and payments made towards Central sales tax. Similarly, a separate account was maintained for the sales tax collections and payments under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. These two accounts showed that in the previous year ending January 16, 1962, relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee had collected Rs. 10,539 by way of Central sales tax from his customers and paid a sum of Rs. 4,520 to the sales tax department leaving an excess collection of Rs. 6,019. Similarly, there was an excess collection in respect of the Madras general sales tax amounting to Rs. 324.2. The Income-tax Officer proposed to treat the excess collections in the two accounts as the assessee's income. The assessee objected to the same on the ground that the sales tax collected did not form part of the sale price for which the goods had been sold, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Jameela Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR165(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The point involved in this reference relates to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 4,07,300, representing the value of the property known as 'Albany' in the estate of the deceased, Mrs. Fathima Bi. The said property originally belonged to one Amirunnissa Begum, wife of Shamsudeeri Sahib. By a deed of settlement dated August 21, 1947, she settled the property absolutely in favour of her husband, Shamsudeen Sahib. He, in turn, executed a settlement deed dated May 15, 1950,, under which he conveyed the same to his daughter, Jameela Begum, with absolute rights subject to a condition that the settler during his lifetime, and, after his death, his second wife, Fathima Bi, during her lifetime, shall be entitled to the income realised from the property. On the death of Shamsudeen Sahib in October, 1950, the legal heirs of his pre-deceased wife, Amirunnissa Begum, challenged the validity of the settlement deed dated August 21, 1947, in C. S. No. 38 of 1956 before the High Court. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Limited Vs. Additional Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ341Mad
K.N. Mudaliar, J.1. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Limited is the petitioner who seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court dated 14th July, 1971.2. The second respondent (Thiru S. Pitchamani) was employed as a head timekeeper in the petitioner-company. On 4th November, 1968, it was alleged that, the second respondent instructed one cooly to remove four cardboard pieces in the dark room adjacent to the personnel office and he also told the watchman that there was no need to have any gate-pass for taking the article from the said office. The second respondent was charge-sheeted for the above act of misconduct and an enquiry was held into the charge. At the enquiry the second respondent was given every opportunity to put forth his defence. The enquiry officer gave his findings to the office that the offence of theft had not been proved though the second respondent could be held guilty of abetting and conniving at the theft. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tirupur Karur Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR116(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a transport company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer found that for the assessment year 1960-61, the profits available for distribution as dividends after payment of tax were Rs. 48,799, that the company declared a dividend of Rs. 17,625, that the dividend declared fell short of the statutory rate of dividend of 65 per cent. and that, therefore, the assessee was liable to be proceeded against under Section 23 A. He, therefore, passed an order under that section. For the assessment year 1961-62 also, the Income-tax Officer found that the profits available for distribution as dividends after payment of tax were Rs. 73,526, that the company declared a dividend of Rs. 31,725, that the said dividend declared fell short of the prescribed limit of 65 per cent. and that, therefore, the assessee was liable to be proceeded against under Section 23A. In this view, he passed an order under that section.2. The assessee file...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarada Binding Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR187(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Both the above references are at the instance of the revenue and the assessee is the same in both the cases. The first case relates to the assessment year 1962-63 and the second relates to the subsequent assessment year 1963-64.2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as a book binder and publisher. It entered into an agreement dated November 15, 1958, with Shri B. Nagi Reddy under which it obtained the right to run the business of 'Chandamama Publications' for a consideration of a fixed sum of Rs. 5,000 per annum plus a sum equivalent to 10 per cent. of the net profits of each year of business. By a settlement deed dated December 24, 1962, Shri B. Nagi Reddy settled his rights under the said agreement on his two grandsons. The two grandsons sold their rights to the assessee under a sale deed dated October 30, 1963, for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000.3. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee paid a total sum ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ct. Muthiah and anr. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas254(Mad); [1974]94ITR323(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act '). This reference arises out of the estate, duty assessment of the estate of late M.Ct.M. Chidambaram Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as ' the deceased '), who died in an aircrash on March 13, 1954. He was survived by his wife and two sons by name M Ct. Muthiah and M.Ct. Pethachi. In the account of the estate which was filed by the two sons of the deceased it was claimed that the deceased was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his two sons and that accordingly the deceased had an interest to the extent of one-third in the properties which ceased on his death. Apart from the-one third share in the family properties which was declared in the accounts there were included amongst other assets in the free estate, moneys received on various policies of insurance on the life of the deceased totalling Rs. 2,36,779. In computing the principal value of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.M. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR209(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court for decision under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 i'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of $ 15,328 was an item of revenue expenditure allowable under the provisions of Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. As we felt that the facts of the case as set out in the stated case were slightly different from those stated in the order of the Tribunal out of which the said question of law is said to arise, we called for a better and fuller statement of the case by our order dated 20th March, 1972, In pursuance of the said order, a fuller and detailed statement of 'the case has since been submitted to this court by the Tribunal. The factual position as emerging from the fuller statement of the case is as follows :3. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family. It owned rubber gardens and house properties in Malaya. It has also been dealing in the purchase and sale o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR546(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 76,306 was allowable as deduction in computing the profits and gains of the business for the year 1961 relevant to the assessment year 1962-63?'2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in insurance. The accounting period adopted is the calendar year. Prior to the year 1956, the assessee was a composite insurance company carrying on business both in life and general insurance. With effect from January 19, 1956, the management of the life insurance or controlled business, on nationalisation vested in the Government who acted through a custodian. the Life Insurance Corporation was established with effect from September 1, 1956, and all the assets and liabilities pertaining to the controlled business of all the insurers th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »