Chennai Court July 1974 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.G. Rathinaswamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR295(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee, an individual, was plying three route bases with a spare bus between Akkur and Shiyali. These buses were acquired by the assessee in the years 1950, 1952 and 1957, for a cost of Rs. 1,14,086 and their written down value at the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1958-59 was Rs. 51,942. The previous year concerned is the year ending with March 31, 1958. In March, 1958, the four buses were sold for a total consideration of Rs. 1,40,000. In the original assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59, the Income-tax Officer considered that the sale considerationincluded, the value of goodwill. Accordingly, he broke up the sale consideration of Rs. 1,40,000, into consideration for sale of buses and value of goodwill and fixed the value of the goodwill at Rs. 84,000 and the sale of buses at Rs. 56,000. The difference of Rs. 4,058 between the sale value of the buses as thus apportioned and the written down value was asses...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Chemical Works (Vellore) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR371(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Its paid up capital was Rs. 45,000 made up of 4,500 shares of Rs. 10 each. For the accounting year ending with September 30, 1959, the company had shown a book profit of Rs. 4,255 after making a provision of Rs. 7,000 for income-lax and Rs. 5,845 for depreciation. It had declared a dividend of Rs. 2,700 for the said accounting year. 2. The company had been assessed under the Income-tax Act for the 5aid accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61 at a total income of Rs. 15,174. In computing the total income the Income-tax Officer has added back to the book profits certain items of expenses which have been disallowed. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the dividend of Rs. 2,700 actually declared fell short of the statutory amount of dividend that should have been declared by the assessee-company under Section 23A, and, therefore, issue...
Tag this Judgment!R. Swaminathan Vs. Annammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ328
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The question that arises in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 1,200 or any part of the same, now lying in Court deposit to the credit of the respondent herein, is attachable in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant herein. The appellant is no other than the stepson of the respondent. In an original petition under the Hindu Marriage Act between the respondent herein and her husband (father of the appellant), the Court ordered the husband to pay periodically a certain sum to the respondent towards her future maintenance. In pursuance of that decree, the husband of the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,200 in Court, representing the maintenance due to the respondent accrued up to a particular date. There was another litigation between the appellant and the respondent in which the appellant has been awarded costs as against the respondent. For realising the said costs, the appellant attached the abovesaid sum of Rs. 1,200 ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Andavar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR502(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 62,144 out of the remuneration paid to the managing agent for their services from January 1, 1960, to August 15, 1960, is justified in law ?'2. The circumstances under which the question came to be referred are these. The assessee-company entered into an agreement, dated April 20, 1942, with Messrs. Bagyalakshmi and Company, whereunder the said Bagyalakshmi and Company was appointed managing agents of the assessee for a period of 20 years. Under the terms of the said agreement, the managing agents were entitled to be paid as remuneration for their services, the following amounts :(a) a monthly allowance of Rs. 1,000 ; (b) a commission of 2% on the cost of buildings, machinery and electrical plants purchased, constructed or erected ; (c) a commission of 1% on the cost of cotto...
Tag this Judgment!The Managiri Village Panchayat Represented by Its President K.R. Pitch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ265
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The Managiri village panchayat represented by its President K.R. Pitchai, is the appellant in this writ appeal. Several panchayats filed writ petitions against the notification of the Government including the villages or parts of them in the Madurai Corporation. All the writ petitions were dismissed. The present appellant alone has preferred an appeal against the dismissal of its petition.2. When the Madurai Municipal Corporation was constituted under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 several areas which formed part of the various Panchayats were included in the Madurai Corporation. The validity of such inclusion was questioned in the various writ petitions.3. Sub-sections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 3 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 are relevant and they are extracted below:Section 3:(1) ....(2) ....(3) ....(4) The Government may, by notification! declare their intention:(a) to exclude from the City any local area compri...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Vanan Vs. Alamelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ263
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondents herein for a declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. There was an alternative relief for partition and separate possession, which was later on given up. The facts of this case are as follows.2. The property in question originally belonged to one Chenni Vannan, the father of plaintiff 6 to 8 and grand father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The first plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the said Chenni Vannan. This Chenni Vannan entered into an agreement to sell with the first defendant on 7th April, 1949. Under the same document, the first defendant also agreed to reconvey the property within a period of seven years on the terms and conditions contained therein. The first defendant sold the property on 20th September, 1954 before the expiry of the said period of seven years to one Pappa Naicker with an agreement that the said Pap...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sivanandan and ors. Vs. Rajammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ251
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The question for decision is whether in the lane marked V in the rough sketch. (Exhibit A-7) attached to the plaint, which belongs to the plaintiff, the defendants are entitled to a right of way. It is necessary to have an idea of the location of the properties as given in Exhibit A-7. There are five plots, designated by the letters I, II, III, IV and V in the sketch. Plot I is the westernmost plot and it abuts Kandasami Koil Street, which is west of Plot I and runs north to south. The north-south measurement of plot I is 30'. Plot II is just east of Plot I and it also measures 30' north to south. Plot III is just east of plot II, but its north-south measurement is only 22' (the east-west measurement being 30'). Thus the western boundary of Plot III is only to a length of 22' along the eastern boundary of plot II and that 22' is counting from the northern point of the common boundary. Plot IV is just east of ...
Tag this Judgment!Durgamma, Legal Representative of Chinnabba Naidu Vs. D. Kamakshiamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ280
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. The Judgment-debtor has preferred this civil miscellaneous second appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram allowing an appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Tiruttani in E. P. No. 242 of 1968 in S.C No. 253 of 1956. The respondent obtained a decree in S.C. No. 253 of 1956 against one Chinnabba Naidu and filed several execution petitions for recovery of the decretal amount, without being able to realise any amount. Meanwhile Chinnabba Naidu died and the appellant Durgamma was impleaded as his legal representative. As against the legal representative, the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 242 of 1968 and attached two items of proportion and brought the same to sale. Durgamma filed an application in E. A. No. 398 of 1967 claiming that these two items belonged to her in her own right and not to the original judgment-debtor. Her application was, however, dismissed and the properties were brought to sale on the 9th February, 1970 a...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. T.V. Shanmugam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT576(Mad)
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore, against the order of acquittal of the Respondents, by the Sub-Magistrate, Gudiyatham.2. The first respondent is the father and the second Respondent is the son. The first Respondent is the Proprietor of Messrs. Shanmugam Match Works, Gudiyatham and is running the Match Factory at Palmaneer Road, Pichanoor, Gudiyatham with a valid licence issued by the Central Excise Department. The second Respondent is the authorised Agent of the said Shanmugam Match Factory. The first respondent has been allowed by the Department to use approved trade label 'The Golden Eagle' on the matches manufactured at Messers Shanmugam Match Factory. The matches manufactured at his premises can be removed outside the factory premises only under a gate pass after debiting the duty payable to the Central Governmentte the presoribed register and accounts maintained at the factory. The bundles also should be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR69(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. It is managed by a private limited company called Essen Private Ltd. Under the managing agency agreement, the managing agency company was entitled to a remuneration of 10 percent, of the net profits of the company. The net profits had to be computed in accordance with Section 348 of the Companies Act, 1956. Under this section, the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Rules framed thereunder, had to be deducted in arriving at the net profits. Section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Rule 8 framed thereunder, provided the manner in which the written down value of the assets had to be calculated. For the assessment year 1960-61, corresponding to the accounting year ending with March 31, 1960, the company calculated the depreciation allowable under the Rules at Rs. 17,63,233, and deducting this amount from the total profit of Rs. 73,38,417 the net profit was arrived at Rs. 55,75,184,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »