Chennai Court December 1975 Judgments
V.L. Dutt Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR634(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference arises out of the penalty proceedings for the belated submission of the return of income for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 by the assessee, who is a director of M/s. V. Ramakrishna & Sons Private Ltd., and whose main source of income was remuneration derived from the company. For the assessment year 1964-65 the return was due under a notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 11th July, 1964. The return was filed only on 27th December, 1965, i.e., nearly 18 months after the date when it was due. The assessment itself came to be made subsequent to the said return. For the assessment year 1965-66, similarly, the return was due on 14th September, 1965, in accordance with the notice under Section 139(2) of the Act. The return was actually filed on 13th June, 1966, i.e., about 9 1/2 months after the notice was issued.2. For both these years the Income-tax Officer required the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be levied ...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Rao and ors. Vs. Rajeswari Ramakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ393
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These appeals arise out of the order of Mohar, J., in which he refused certain reliefs prayed ad interim by the appellants as petitioners in an original suit filed by them on the original side of this Court. The plaint was by three shareholders of V. Ramakrishna Sons Limited against the other shareholders for certain reliefs. The learned Judge in his order has set out in extenso the reliefs asked for. In the original action the plaintiffs appellants claim that the 6th defendant was the managing agent of a public company known as K.C.P. Limited and the said parent firm Was floated by the common ancestor of the family, the late V. Ramakrishna. When he was alive V. Ramakrishna on his own initiative floated many companies such as the parent company and the R.S. Industrial Corporation Private Limited and the 6th defendant company as well. According to the plaintiffs when Ramakrishna was alive in order to set at rest present or possible bickering in the family, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mettupalayam Industrial Roadways (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Thiru Mohamed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ446
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As these two revisions filed by two different Transport operators are directed against the same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras, dated 10th April, 1972, they are dealt with together.2. A proposal for the introduction of two additional buses on the route Coimbatore to Mettupalayam was notified and after considering the representations received, the proposal was approved for one bus. Applications were, therefore, called under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There were as many as 56 applicants and the petitioners in these cases were applicants 25 and 36 respectively while the respondent in both the cases was the 23rd applicant. The applications were duly notified under Section 57(3). In its hearing held on 31st July, 1971, the Regional Transport Authority rejected, the claim of applicant No. 36 on the ground that he had been given a permit for the route Coimbatore to Viscose factory in the same sitting and the application of the 25th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poly-ene General Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR242(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The assesses, a registered firm, is manufacturing polythene bags. The relevant assessment years under consideration are 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee claimed rebate under Section 2(5)(a)(iii) of the Finance Acts, 1964 and 1965, on the ground that polythene bags manufactured by it were actually exported out of India by the persons by whom they were purchased and as such the said exports were eligible for the relief under the aforesaid clause. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the rebate so claimed on the ground that the industry was not listed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered that this case could be described as 'plastic industry' coining under entry 19(4) of the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. He, therefore, held that the rebate was admissible, He pointed out that the sales made by the assessee to exporters amounted to particular figures in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P. Sankaran Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR366(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference under the Wealth-tax Act relates to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1963-64, the corresponding valuation dates being the 31st day of March preceding the respective assessment years. The assessee, who was at the relevant time serving in the army, purchased under a document dated November 2, 1955, 17 acres and 39 cents of lands in Velachery village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District, for a sum of Rs. 33,000. The lands were covered by certain cowles granted in 1861, 1863 and 1864. The then Government wanted to encourage the planting of trees so as to cover the surface of the country with verdure to attract rain and for this purpose, granted the cowles. The lands was to be free of rent for 20 years from the date of grant. The holder of the cowle was at liberty to grow any fruit or forest trees, or plantation for fuel. 20% of the land was to be planted with trees, within the first year of the cowle and another 20 in each succeeding year, so that the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mrs. T.R. Faria
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ275
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. An interesting question has arisen before me by reason of the office note.The Petitioner seeking a succession certificate is an Anglo-Indian. The objection of the office is that the petition is not maintainable, because the definition of 'Indian Christian' under Section 2(d) of the Indian Succession Act, would not enable an Anglo-Indian to file a petition for succession certificate. The proper remedy would be to apply for letters of administration, in view of Sections 212 and 219 of the Act. Prima facie I am inclined to agree with the office note. However, what Mr. R. Mohan, Learned Counsel, would urge is that if Anglo-Indians are excluded from the purview of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining succession certificate, it would constitute a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I am afraid I cannot decide this point at this stage. Certainly, it will be open to the petitioner to file a writ petition challenging the provision...
Tag this Judgment!A. K. Bashu Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR736(Mad)
V. RAMASWAMI J. - The assessee is a bus operator. For the assessment year 1957-58, he returned a loss of Rs. 24,536. In this return, he had estimated the income from 15 buses owned by him at Rs. 8,000 per bus on the basis of the income determined by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1956-57. When he was called upon to produce his accounts by notice under section 22(4) of the Act, the assessee denied the maintenance of any accounts and did not even produce the trip sheets, invoices and correspondence with the regional transport authorities. The assessee was maintaining some sort of account uptill March 31, 1954. But even these accounts were not accepted by the department in the relevant assessment years. By an order of assessment dated March 31, 1958, the Income-tax Officer estimated the total income on the basis of increase in the wealth and determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,88,683 at the rate of Rs. 19,245 per bus. Though the Appellate Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.G. Panneerdas and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1975
Reported in: [1978]112ITR225(Mad)
Ramaswami J. 1. The following four questions are referred under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 12,200 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 is illegal? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 6,404 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1959-60 is illegal ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 8,700 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1960-61 is illegal ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 6,300 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1961-62 is il...
Tag this Judgment!Pattusami Padayachi Vs. Mullaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ225
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff' sic O.S. No. 86 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram, is the appellant. Muthusami Padayachi is the common ancestor. He married twice and his senior wife is called Pattathammal and his second wife was known as Pattayee. Muthusami Padayachi originally belonged to Silambur in Trichi district. He had two sons through his first wife, who are the husband of the first defendant in the action and the 4th defendant herein. The plaintiff is the son through the junior wife. The senior wife died in or about 1940 and the junior wife in 1943. Though Muthusami Padayachi left a daughter through his first wife, she died leaving a minor daughter who also died in 1949. Muthusami Padayachi, therefore, left behind him surviving the first defendant's husband as the eldest son, the 4th defendant and the plaintiff as his second and third sons. Muthusatri Padayachi originally belonged to Silambur and it is Common ground that he divided his ancestra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arasan Fertilisers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1975
Reported in: [1978]114ITR802(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67 corresponding to the accounting period ending December 31, 1965, the assessee-company claimed a rebate of 8% on the tax payable on the ground that the company was engaged in the business of manufacture of fertilisers. This claim was based on Section 80E as it stood at the relevant time read with item 13 of the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee-company purchased bones, hoofs and horns of animals. These are degreased and unnecessary substances like glue and tallow are eliminated and the residue, after dehydration is pulverised and converted into fertiliser known as bonemeal. The entire process is a mechanical one. It is, stated that the bonemeal manufactured by the assessee is a fertiliser, rich both in nitrogenand phosphorus. The Income-tax Officer did not give any rebate and had also not given any reason for not giving the rebate. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that item 13 of the Fifth Sch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »