Chennai Court January 1976 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.
Elgi Equipments (Private) Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC310(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees are manufacturers and dealers in service station equipments such as air compressors, car washers, hydraulic lifts, etc. For the assessment year 1964-65, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 30,73,594.69 and Rs. 9,42,804 38, respectively. The assessing officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 32,36,332.19 and Rs. 9,53,424.38 respectively. The assessees had used motors and pistons in the manufacture of air compressors and car washers. These motors and pistons were purchased by them issuing form XVII to the sellers and paying the concessional rate of sales tax. The taxable turnover determined by the assessing authority included the sales of air compressors and car washers in which they had used these motors and pistons, which they have purchased after issuing form XVII. With respect to these air compressors and car washers, the assessees claimed that they were not used with electrical energy and that they were interchangeable w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Radiators Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR680(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a controlled company for the purpose of the Act. For the assessment year 1967-68 corresponding to the year ending March 31, 1967, it had given perquisites in the shape of rent-free quarters, free conveyance and insurance premium to three of its employees drawing salary in excess of Rs. 7,500 per annum in addition to certain payments of bonus. The Income-tax Officer in calculating perquisites admissible under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act excluded the bonus paid, the value of the rent-free quarters and free conveyance, etc. On an appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while confirming the exclusion of the value of rent-free quarters, free conveyance and insurance premium, directed the inclusion of the bonus in the salary paid for the purpose of calculating the value of the perquisites admissible. The revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal against this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that only salary proper cou...
E.i.D. Parry Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ276Mad
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the 1st defendant-Industrial Tribunal, made in Industrial Dispute 29 of 1972, dated 11th December, 1972. The snort facts are as follows :2. By G.O. Rt. No. 1508 dated 17th June, 1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred for adjudication two issues between the workmen and the management of H.I.D. Parry Ltd., Ranipet. Those two issues are:1. Whether the demand for extension of accident benefit applicable to the workers who joined service before 1961, to those who joined thereafter is justified and to what relief they would be entitled ; und2. Whether the demand that the work-men who have completed 20 years of service should be given the option of pension instead of gratuity is justified and if so, to formulate a scheme.On receipt of this reference, the Industrial Tribunal took up the matter for adjudication and answered issue No. 1 in favour of the management und as regards issue No 2 it held that the workmen who ha...
Karumuthu S. Chockalingam Vs. T. Kannappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1382
ORDERPaul, J.1. Cri.R.C. No. 728 of 1975 has been preferred by one Karumuthu S. Chockalingam, whose private complaint against four persons alleging offences Under Sections 447, 448, 379 and 380 I.P.C, was dismissed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate III, Madurai Under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. Cri, M. P. No. 4461/75 has been filed by the revision petitioner, raising certain additional grounds in the aforesaid criminal revision case. The criminal revision case came up for admission and since even if it is admitted, this revision being against the order of dismissal of a complaint Under Section 203, Cr. P. C. the accused persons would not be entitled to any notice, elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the matter was heard fully.2. In his private complaint filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Madurai, the complainant-revision petitioner has made the following allegations. He is the Director of the...
The Management of E.i.D. Parry Limited Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ473
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the 1st defendant--Industrial Tribunal, made in I.D. No. 29 of 1972 dated 11th December 1972.The short facts are as follows:2. By G.O. Rt. No. 1518 dated 17th June, I972, the Government of Tamilnadu referred for adjudication two issues between the workmen and the management of E.I.D. Parry Limited, Ranipet. Those two issues are:1. Whether the demand for extension of accident benefit applicable to the workers who joined service before 1961 to those who joined thereafter is justified and to what relief they would be entitled; and2. Whether the demand that the workmen who have completed 20 years of service should be given tlie option of pension instead of gratuity is justified and if so, to formulate a scheme.On receipt of this reference, the Industrial Tribunal took up the matter for adjudication and answered issue No. 1 in favour of the management and as regards issue No. 2 it held that the workmen who had co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Steels and Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR341(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses of Rs. 11,13,084 incurred prior to the commencement of production in the assessee's sugar factory, which started functioning in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, namely, 1966-67, should be treated as part of the cost of plant and machinery for granting depreciation and development rebate for 1966-67 assessment ?'2. The assessee is a company which was originally engaged only in trading operations. It extended its activities by setting up a sugar factory and the first crushing operation took place on 10th March, 1965. Prior to the commencement of production, the assessee incurred certain expenditure which was included under the following heads :Rs.Vehicles maintenance70,722Travelling expenses21,413Electricity charges16,310Interest on loans3,34,278Registrati...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Chandappa Iyer (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: [1976]103ITR810(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for decision :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share of the assessee's wife in the firm, M/s. Indian Sandal Oil Industries, other than the interest on the sum contributed by her as capital cannot be included in the assessment of the assessment year 1962-63 '2. The assessee transferred a sum of Rs. 60,000 to his wife by name Tulasi Ammal on 7th January, 1958. She entered into a partnership with her son, Hunumantha Rao, under a deed dated 6th July, 1958. The firm was known as Indian Sandal Oil Industries. This firm was granted registration under the Income-tax Act. We are concerned in the present reference with the assessment year 1962-63. For the earlier year, namely, 1961-62, she had earned a sum of Rs. 2,385 as her share of profits and this sum was sought to be included in the assessment of the assessee. The assessment so made wa...
V.S. Alwar Iyengar Vs. Tahsildar and Record Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1976
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ439
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The oft-raised question whether the designated Revenue authorities are entitled to entertain applications under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Right) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and pass orders thereon after the civil Courts had expressed their opinion in proceedings instituted before them about the status of an alleged cultivating tenant is the subject-matter of debate in this case. The brief facts which are required to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the petitioner are as set out below:2. The petitioner is the owner of wet lands bearing Survey Nos. 682 and 683 situated in Maharajapuram Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Ramnad District. According to him the fourth respondent herein was permitted to carry out certain agricultural operations on those lands on a contractual basis under a written agreement dated 7th November, 1973. The agreement came to an end six months later and the accounts were settled and th...
P.S. Angaiya Raja Vs. A.K.D. Alagaraja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad142
1. These two revision petitions arise out of two interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners in two different suits for excusing the delay in filing the original petitions for applying under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act. The summons in the suits for ejectment was served on the petitioners on 26-6-1971 and 28-6-1971, and the suits were posted for appearance on 7-7-1971. According to the petitioners, they were informed by their Advocates that the original petition under Section 9 of the City Tenants' Protection Act had to be filed within thirty days from the date of their appearance in court. As the section required that the petition should be filed within one month after service on them of summons and not from the date of appearance in court, there was a delay of four days and two days.2. On the merits, there can be no difficulty in excusing the delay, for the learned advocates who appeared for the petitions have filed affidavits to he effect that they had advis...
Mythili Raman Vs. CaptaIn K.T. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1976
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ399
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous appeals by a Hindu wife arise under pecaliar circumstances. The husband filed a position under Section 10(1)(6) of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as the Act), for judicial separation on the ground that the wife had been guilty of cruelty towards him. The wife contested the petition refuting the allegations made by the husband against her. She also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim alimony and expenses of proceedings. The husband filed a counter-affidavit opposing the aforesaid application under Section 24. Peculiarly enough, the Court below did not hear this application and passed no order thereon it had been adjourning the application along with the main petition for judicial separation from time to time. In fact, on behalf of the wife, an application for advancing the hearing of the above said application viz., the application under Section 24, was also filed as the Court below had ad...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »