Chennai Court March 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Monoranjan Ganguli and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Secretary to Government, Fin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC549(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 41 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act (Act No. 6 of 1967), against the order of the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Pondicherry, made under Section 37 of that Act. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on business as dealer in automobiles and spare parts at Pondicherry. For the assessment year 1966-67 the appellant reported a total and taxable turnovers of Rs. 7,53,199.58 and Rs. 5,50,275.17, respectively. Before the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, who was the assessing authority, the appellant claimed exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 33,862.82 representing two transactions of sale made on 2nd March, 1967, and 25th March, 1967. Though the assessing authority held that those transactions were not exempt and liable to sales tax, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that they were exempt from the levy of sales tax. The facts necessary for the claim of this exemption may now be noted.2. The vali...
Anjalai Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ196
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant in respect of 51 cents in R. S. No. 9/2 belonging to one Arunachala Iyer of Nemmeli village in Sirkali taluk. An extent of 3.64 acres of wet lands belonging to the said Arunachala Iyer was declared as surplus land by the Authorised Officer, the first respondent herein, under the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. R.S. No. 9/2 formed part of the land declared as surplus. In the draft and final notification published under Sections 12 and 18 respectively the name of the petitioner had been shown as occupier. After the final notification under Section 18, excess lands were taken over by Government. Thereafter a notice in form B inviting applications in Form C for assignment of the lands was duly published. Two ' applications had been received in answer to the said notice for the assignment of the above lands. The said applications were duly notified in For...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mrs. Kamala Pandalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR531(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Lt. Col. K. G. Pandalai, a famous surgeon of his time, died on 5th February, 1960, leaving behind him only his wife, Kamala Pandalai, who is the accountable person for the estate duty proceedings that commenced on his death. By an indenture dated 18th of June, 1940, he gifted the three house properties named Vijaya, Vasantha and Ashoka together with a vacant site in Teynampet to his wife. In 1941, he constructed a house named Vanaja on the vacant site. From 1941 onwards Mrs. Kamala Pandalai was collecting the rents from these houses and leasing them as and when they fell vacant. In 1958, one of the buildings was leased out by her to the American Consulate with the lease deed in her name. Similarly, another building was leased out to Lloyds Bank, where also the lease deed was in her name.2. The deceased had acquired shares of the value of Rs. 3,520 in Bala-madies Plantations Ltd., in the name of his wife, as early as 1943. The source for the investment had been provided...
Second Income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. M.C.T. Trust and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR138(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These are four appeals against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J. on the writ petitions filed before him. 2. The said judgment is reported in M. CT. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust v. 4th Income-tax Officer, City Circle VI, Madras : [1972]86ITR282(Mad) . Though the four appeals relate to different trusts, it is enough for our present purpose to set out the facts in W.A. No. 167 of 1972 as typical of all of them. 3. By an indenture dated June 4, 1951, Lady Muthiah Chettiar and her two sons executed a trust settlement transferring and delivering to the trustees a sum of Rs. 10,000 for certain charitable objects specified in the deed. The settlors intended to and did make further contributions of a substantial nature towards the objects of the trust. This trust was enjoying the exemption from levy of income-tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 4922. The assessment year with which we are now concerned in this appeal is 1964-6...
B. Muniappa Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR787(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference is common to three assessment years, viz., 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. There are two questions which arise for consideration, viz.:--'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining concealment penalty of Rs. 18,000, Rs. 21,000 and Rs. 25,500 in respect of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61? And (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment year 1958-59 and under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 was not illegal?' 2. The second question is more easily answered and, therefore, we take It first for consideration. For the assessment year 1958-59, the original assessment was completed on March 31, 1959, under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On the basis of...
K. Karuppanna Mudaliar Vs. Kuttianna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad5; (1975)2MLJ152
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint and the plan attached thereto. The petitioner herein who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 153 of 1969 filed the said suit for declaring the plaintiff's right to drain wash water of the kitchen and bath room and rain water falling from the eaves of his house through the vent towards east through the drain, for restraining the defendant, his men, heirs and assigns etc., from interfering with and disturbing in any manner the peaceful enjoyment of the said right by means of a permanent injunction and for directing the defendant to remove the obstruction to the vent on the east and in case the defendant fails to comply with the decree, the same may be removed by Court and the defendant may be made liable for the expenses. Along with the plaint, the petitioner herein filed a plan showing the location of the respective houses of the parties and the vent alleged in the...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Gemini Studios
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC357(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty levied under Section 10(b) read with Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondents are dealers registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. They are film producers and processors of cinema films. They purchased an Otis lift for Rs. 20,630 on 30th September, 1960, by issuing C forms. On the ground that the registration certificate issued under the Central Sales Tax Act did not authorise the purchase of Otis lift by issue of C forms, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, T. Nagar Division, initiated proceedings under Section 10(b) read with Section 10A of the Act. The respondents replied by their letter dated 9th May, 1967, that Otis lift purchased by them would come either within the class of articles mentioned in category (b) of the certificate of registration or under category (c) as accessories of plant and machinery necessary to execute the contracts for studio...
M.A.M.V. Ramasami Nadar and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC373(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this tax case is as to whether the petitioners are liable to pay tax on a turnover of Rs. 14,258, which represented the value of husk left by the petitioners with the millers in lieu of cooly charges. 2. Facts found by the Tribunal are as follows :The petitioners are commission agents having dealings in groundnuts on behalf of the agriculturist-principals. After receiving the groundnuts from the agriculturists, the petitioners sent them for decortication with some third party millers. As cooly charges or charges for hulling, husk is given to the mills and only groundnut kernel is taken delivery of by the petitioners. The contention of the revenue was that there is a sale of the husk to the mill by the petitioners and that, therefore, the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. We are entirely at a loss to understand either the reasoning or finding of the Tribunal that the value of the husk is liable to be taxed. The fact...
Glenrock Wood and Allied Enterprises Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC316(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in timber. In respect of the year 1963-64, they returned a total and taxable turnovers of Rs. 5,19,207.89 and Rs. 2,43,564.05 respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Ootacamund, by his order dated 17th March, 1965, determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,40,371.89 in the view that the balance of the taxable turnover returned was liable to be included in the Tamil Nadu general sales tax assessment and not in the Central sales tax assessment. Though in effect therefore the return of the assessees themselves was accepted by the assessing officer, they preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that they had mistakenly submitted the turnover as inter-State, that there was no inter-State sale at all and they had transported the goods to their own depot at Calicut and the Calicut office only had made local sales in respect of a portion and inter-State sales in respect of the...
Dugar and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC231(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62, originally the petitioners were assessed on a turnover of Rs. 25,200 and a penalty of Rs. 2,646 was levied under Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On an appeal preferred by the petitioners, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the case for a fresh disposal. After remand, the assessing officer held that, except in respect of three transactions, the petitioners had proved that the other transactions were not liable to sales tax. The three transactions which were disputed were held to be sales by the petitioners. Since they have not proved that they were second or subsequent sales, they were held to be liable for tax. The turnover of these items was determined at Rs. 8,500 and assessed at 7 per cent. The assessing officer also levied a penalty of Rs. 892.50. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.2. The contention of the petitioners before us and before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »