Chennai Court November 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.
L. K. Shaik Mohammed Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR622(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The following two questions, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the income-tax department, were referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, as arising out of its order dated 30th May, 1969, in I.T.A. No. 966 of 1967-68 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 56,258 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in rejection the plea of the department that an addition of Rs. 1,25,000 should be retained for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'During the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacture and purchase and sale of jewellery and precious stones. During the course of the examination of the books of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer came across certain loans alleged to have been taken on hundis by the assessee and was of the view that those loans are not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas-t.V.S. Limited (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR338(Mad)
Ismail, J.1.At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions of law, arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated December 31, 1971, relating to the four assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 for the opinion of this court:' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disputed 50% of the technical aid fees to Messrs. Joseph Lucas (Industries) Ltd., England, was revenue expenditure and, therefore, liable to be allowed as deduction from the income of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the initial depreciation should not be deducted in determining the written down value of assets for computation of capital employed in the newly established industrial undertaking under rule 19 of th...
R.M.T.S.S. Dhanasekaran Vs. State Bank of India, Dindigul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad252
1. These two appeals have been filed by the third defendant O. S. No. 97 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Dindigul against the orders dismissing his applications, viz., I. A. Nos. 660 of 1975 and 688 of 1975, for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 31-7-1973 and the ex parte final decree dated 11-1-1974.2. The respondent bank filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 76,517.85 said to be due on a mortgage from the defendants 1 to 5. The first defendants is a firm and defendants 2 to 4 are the partners and the minor 5th defendant has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The sixth defendant is the Official Assignee, Madras, in charge of the estate of defendants 2 to 4 who have been adjudicated as insolvents. In the suit, no personal service of summons was effected on the third defendant, but summons had been served by substituted service and by publication in 'Malai Murasu' newspaper. The 5th defendant. a minor represented by a Court-guardian,...
R.M.T.S.S. Dhanasekaran Vs. State Bank of India Through Its Agent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ271
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the third defendant in O.S. No. 97 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Dindigul, against the order dismissing his applications viz., I.A. Nos. 660 and 668 of 1975, for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 31st July, 1973 and the ex parte final decree dated 11th January, 1974.2. The respondent bank filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 5,76,517-85 said to be due on a mortgage from the defendants 1 to 5. The first defendant is a firm and defendants 2 to 4 are the partners and the minor 5th defendant has been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The sixth defendant is the Official Assignee, Madras, in charge of the estate of defendants 2 to 4 who have been adjudicated as insolvents. In the suit, no personal service of summons was effected on the third defendant, but summons had been served by substituted service and by publication in 'Malai Murasu' newspaper. The 5th defendant, a minor rep...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Krishnaswamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR505(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Addl. CIT, Madras, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :--' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held by the Tribunal that the receipt of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 21,605 found in the ' Estate and Properties Account' for each of the assessment years could not be the subject-matter for consideration by the AAC, as the same were not the subject-matter of consideration before the ITO '2. The short facts which have given rise to the above question are as follows : The assessee is a resident individual whose income mainly consists of income from the business of bus transport in India and a half share income from the non-resident firm of Pussethanna Estate, Gombola, Ceylon, which owns certain tea estates. No assessment has been made in India on the said foreign firm. The assessee maintained an account cal...
Additional Commssioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii, Vs. V. R. A. Manicka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR521(Mad)
JUDGEMENTISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, has referreed the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts that and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees share in the partnership from of M/s. Erode Service constituted his separate and individual property and not the property of the joint family consisting of himself and his five sons ?'There was one Angappa Mudaliar, the father of the assessee. He had five sons, including the assessee. There was complete partition between Angappa Mudaliar and his five sons and that partition took place in 1943. The said partition was also accepted by the Income-tax department under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Angappa Mudaliar died on January 25, 1962, leaving behind a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Under the prov...
Additional Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. S.V.R. Cycle Mart
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR429(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras-I, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer of shares in the Chettinad Mercantile Bank Ltd. by the assessee-firm to its partners within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of 270 shares in the same company by the assessee to the three ladies was not for inadequate consideration and, hence, provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act are not attracted?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, Veerappa Chettiar and Chinnan Chettiar. The partnership firm owned 520 shares in the Chettinad Mercantile Bank Ltd. The original...
S. Venkataraman Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ284
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the first respondent (Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur) made in R.C. No. 16758/68-E dated 3rd April, 1970 as confirmed by the second respondent (The Co-operative Tribunal (District Judge), West Thanjavur) in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1971 dated 15th October, 1974.2. The petitioner herein is the Cooperative Sub-Registrar and he was serving in that capacity during the period from 25th December, 1965 to 21st January, 1968 in the third respondent society. Under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (here in after referred to as the Act), an enquiry was conducted into the affairs of the Society. On 19th September, 1969 the first respondent issued a notice under Section 71(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against him for the loss of Rs. 26,000 and odd. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 29th November, 1969 contending ...
Sri Tirumeni Alagar Devasthanam, Represented by Its Hereditary Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ118
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. Land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Special Deputy Collector (Rural Housing Schemes), Tiruvarur (here in after referred to as the Collector) for the purpose of providing house sites to landless workers. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (here in after referred to as the Act) was published on the 4th of July, 1973. It provided inter alia:.Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act shall not apply to this case.2. Simultaneously a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the acquisition proceedings.4. In support of the petition only three contentions are raised:(1) The provision of house sites for landless workers was not a purpose which cou...
Palani Andavar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR742(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the expenditure of the two sums of Rs. 12,039 and Rs. 20,550 were not revenue expenses and as such not admissible deductions ?' 2. The assessment year was 1967-68 for which the accounting year was the year ending on 31st December, 1966. The first amount represented the cost of construction of a building. It stood on an account called 'Mill Colony School Building Account', and it was transferred to 'Labour Welfare Account' during the close of the year. This amount represented what was spent by the assessee in the construction of an elementary school on the land belonging to the Palani Andavar Employees' Housing Cooperative Society. Part of the expenditure representing the amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »