Chennai Court November 1976 Judgments
Mettur Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR439(Mad)
JUDGEMENTISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts of Rs. 15,50,000 being provision for tax liability Rs. 1,36,060 being provision for payment of gratuity to employees and Rs. 5,69,000 being provision for payment of bonus to employees as on 1st April, 1962, being the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, were not to be included in computing the assesees capital for the purpose of the Super Profits tax Act, 1963 ?'The matter lies within a very narrow compass and it concerns the questions as to what constitutes, 'reserve' as contemplated by Paragraph 1 of Schedule II of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act').The assessee is a public limited company registered under the compani...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Auto Service and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR540(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The question referred to this court in Tax Case No. 275 of 1972 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 7,44,000 representing proposed dividends and Rs. 16,34,494 representing provision for taxation could not be taken into account for the purpose of computation of capital of the assessee company under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?'The question referred to this court in T.C. No. 277 of 1972 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the two sums of Rs. 8,35,800 being proposed dividends and Rs. 14,07,933 being provision for taxation could not be regarded as reserves and, therefore, not includible in the computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?'The question referred in T.C. No. 280 of 1972 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been right...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasubramania Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Soorianarayana Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad297
1. The suit was filed by the first respondent for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 10-6-1871. The period of redemption prescribed under this document is 240 years. The present suit was filed in 1969 after expiry of a period of 98 years. The plaintiff's case was that the period of 240 years prescribed under the document is a clog on redemption. In the plaint he pleaded that the suit was within time on the ground that there was an acknowledgment of liability under Ex. A-1 of the year 1946 and later by payment of kist in respect of the suit property in the name of the mortgagor. But at the hearing, the plaintiff was not able to rely on any acknowledgment of liability. But it was contended that until the court in this suit relieves the mortgagor of the clog in the mortgage document it could not be said that the right to redeem or recover possession had accrued and the period of redemption had commenced. It is this contention that was accepted by the courts below. The courts ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Parvathambal Vs. Attimuthu Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ196
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. In the said suit she Sued to recover from the first defendant personally and from defendants 2 and 3 from out of the family properties in their hands, a sum of Rs. 79,544 based on a contract of indemnity. According to the plaintiff, on 7th June, 1944, as per the sale deed Exhibit A-1 the first defendant, for himself and as guardian for his then minor brother Ramaswami Gounder, sold certain properties for Rs. 45,000 to the husband of the plaintiff benami in the name of one Gopalakrishnan, the fourth defendant herein. As per the terms of the said sale deed and the special undertaking therein, the vendor, the first defendant, has undertaken to be responsible for any loss that might be caused to the vendee (plaintiff's husband) or for any defect in the properties. In fact, the properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's h...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Thirumagal Mills L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR236(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The two questions that have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in T. Cs. Nos. 287 and 289 of 1972 are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dividend equalisation reserve of Rs. 20,000 is reserve and accordingly includible in the capital computation for abatement in the surtax assessment for 1964-65 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dividend equalisation reserve of Rs. 90,000 is a reserve and accordingly includible in the capital computation for abatement in the super profits tax assessment for 1963-64 ?'The assessee is the same in respect of both these tax cases (T. Cs. Nos. 287 and 289 of 1972).In the other tax case, namely, T.C. No. 120 of 1974, in which the assessee is different, the question that has been referred to this court is :'Whether, on the f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas-t.V.S. Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR346(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The former reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. The latter reference relates to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1966-67. In the former reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether it has been rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of 8% from its profits and gains of Rs. 71,43,105 under Section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 1,30,768 representing indirect expenditure such as salaries, rent, lighting, etc., and allocated to various assets formed part of the capital asset for the eligibility of depreciation allowance and in relation to the cost of machinery was eligible for development rebate' also ? 3....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Rahima Bi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR810(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court in relation to the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right is setting aside the entire assessments ?'The assessments referred to above relate to the estate of late Gundu Hafiz Mohammed Yousuff of Valathoor. The said Gundu Hafiz Mohammed Yousuff was deriving share income from three firms and the died on January 21, 1956. For the three assessment years, namely, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1953-54, assessments were made by issue of notices to Rahima Bi, wife of Gundu Hafiz Mohammed Yousuff, the assessee, treating her as the legal representative of her deceased husband. She filed returns for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The assessments were completed. On February 19, 1959, S. ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Radhakrishnan Vs. M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ440
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the lower Court rejecting the appellant's application under section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Act IV 1938 seeking for the scaling down of the decree dated 13th August, 1972, passed in O.S. No. 5038 of 1969.2. The respondent, which is a firm, obtained a consent decree against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 19,700, as an assignee of the promissory note executed by the appellant for a sum of Rs, 15,000 in favour of one Manicka Mudaliar the second defendant in the suit, as part of the sale consideration for a bus MSY 2441 which he had purchased on 22nd December, 1966. Subsequent to passing of the said consent decree, the decree-holder, put the said decree in execution. At that stage the appellant filed an application under section 19 of the said Act for scaling down of the decree debt on the ground that he is an agriculturist as defined in the Act and therefore, he is entitled to claim the benefit, of that Act. The application...
Tag this Judgment!Animuthu Vs. Gandhiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad372
1. The defendant is the appellant. He had two sons by name Gurusami and Raghavan. There was no partition between the defendant and his sons and they constituted Mitakshara Joint Hindu family. Raghavan died sometime in 1960 leaving his widow the first plaintiff and a minor son Ulaganathan who is the second plaintiff in this case. The plaintiffs filed a suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the sum of Rs. 75 claimed by them towards the maintenance was reasonable and accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for.2. In this second appeal the learned counsel for the appellant contended that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), the first plaintiff widow is entitled to claim a share in the joint family properties as heir of deceased Raghavan and that she is not entitled to claim any mainte...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Purushotham Chettiar Vs. S. Parasumal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ275
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. This is one of those cases which has come up to this Court on the fourth round. The tenant-respondent succeeded before the District Court which at that particular point of time could exercise a revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act XVIII of 1960. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found the requirement of the landlord of the premises in the occupation of the tenant-respondent to be bona fide. The revisional authority, however, differed. There was also an additional legal contention by the tenant that the application of the landlord was not maintainable because admittedly he had a right of residence in the premises in which he was residing on the date when he filed the application for eviction. As this premises which according to the tenant is his own by reason of the right of residence annexed to his occupation the argument was that the petition by the landlord under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »