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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Simpson and Company.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1976
Reported in: [1980]122ITR283(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interpretation given by the Appellate Tribunal for the words 6% per annum used under section 84 is justified ?'The assessee is a company which was assessed for the assessment years 1962- 63 and 1963-64. In the original assessment made for the assessment year 1962-63, the capital employed was found to be Rs. 14,40,792 and 6% thereon was given as a relief under the provisions of s. 84 as it was then in force. Similarly, for the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee was granted relief at 6% on the capital employed as determined by the ITO in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Later, the ITO considered that excessive relief had been granted to the assessee and he, therefore, reopened the assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act. Apparently, the view of the ITO was that excessive rel...
K.S. Venkataraman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Home Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ211Mad
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner was functioning as a Superintendent of Police under the Tamil Nadu Government, when, on the 7th November, 1960 he was suspended from service with effect from the 20th October, 1960 because proceedings for departmental action were initiated against him on charges framed in May. 1958. The proceedings lingered on for about four years and ultimately, in the year 1964, the State Government recommended that ho be removed from service The Government of India, however, referred the matter to the Solicitor-General, who was of the opinion that the petitioner had not had a fear trial. Acting on that opinion, the Government of India passed an order that all the changes preferred against the petitioner be dropped and directed the State Government to reinstate him. On the 15th March, i9S5 the petitioner was served with an order from the State Government, dropping all the charges against him reinstating him in service and limiting his salary from service to the s...
K. S. Venkataraman Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ317
ORDERA. D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner was functioning as a Superintendent of Police under the Tamil Nadu Government, when, on the 7th November, 1960 he was suspended from service with effect from the 20th October, 1960 because proceedings for departmental action were initiated against him on charges framed in May, 1958. The proceedings lingered on for about four years and ultimately, in the year 1964, the State Government recommended that he be removed from service. The Government of India, however, referred the matter to the Solicitor-General, who was. of the opinion that the petitioner had not had a fair trial. Acting on that opinion, the Government of India passed an order that all the charges preferred against the petitioner be dropped and directed the State Government to reinstate him. On the 15th March, 1965 the petitioner was; served with an order from the State Government, dropping all the charges against him, reinstating him in service and limiting his salary from service to ...
S. Alagu Ambalam Vs. Ambakudi Panchayat in Sakkottai Panchayat Union, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ334
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 435 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Devakottai, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the Ambakudi Panchayat whose President was the defendant himself from 3rd December, 1962 to 18th April, 1965. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,454.94 as damages on account of the negligence or misconduct alleged on the part of the appellant, when he was the President of the Panchayat. One of the defences taken by the appellant was that the suit was barred by limitation. He contended that he ceased to be the President of the Panchayat on 18th April, 1965 that the acts alleged against, him were those that took place before that date, that the suit was instituted only on 20th May, 1968, that is, more than three years after 18th April, 1965 and that consequently the same was barred by limitation under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. The Cou...
K.R. Velayudha Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR381(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1964, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court: ' 1. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 4,890 under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment year 1964-65 2. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 3,440 under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment year 1965-66 3. Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 6,050 under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' 2. Admittedly, in this case, the assessee did not file the returns for the three years in question in time. The actual dates on which the returns were due and the dates on which the returns were filed and the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(a) are shown here-under : Assessment yearDue date for filing the returnDate of actual filing of the returnsPenalty levied b...
Lakshmi Paper Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR447(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. 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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to allowance of development rebate to the extent of Rs. 1,69,133' ?2. The assessee was a partnership firm consisting of five partners. For the year ending October 18, 1962, relevant assessment year 1963-64, the assessee-firm installed machinery to the value of Rs. 6,76,549 and claimed development rebate to the extent of Rs. 1,69,133 calculated at 25 per cent. of Rs. 6,76,549. The firm was dissolved by the time the assessment was taken up. The date of dissolution of the firm was August 20, 1966. As per the dissolution deed the machinery in question was taken over by three of the five partners. The development rebate reserve created was also taken over as a liability by the said three partners...
Papammal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ157
A.D. Koshal, J.1. On the 4th of January, 1971 the Labour Court, Madras passed an award holding M/s. Madras National Engineering Work (hereinafter referred as the debtor firm) to be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,686.37 to one of their employees named Karunaiprakasam. Machinery belonging to the debtor-firm was at that time lying pledged with the State Bank of India and was sold by the latter to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 73,000 on the 24th of November, 1971. Having came to know of this fact, the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudrur Taluk issued an order dated 8th July, 1972 under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), authorising the village munsif concerned to attach the property belonging to the petitioner and to sell the same in public auction if the above mentioned amount was not paid by her. It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that it be quashed by a writ of certi...
Ramanujam and ors. Vs. V. Manickam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ152
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 690 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged 1/4th share in two items of properties. The first plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 are the sons of the first defendant. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the sons of the first plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 6 are the sons of the second defendant. Defendants 8 and 9 are the sons of the 7th defendant. Suit item 1 is a house and ground bearing door No. 30, Aziz Mulk Second Street, Thousandlights, Madras and suit item 2 is the site and superstructure bearing door No 11/105, Mount Road, Madras.2. The defendants did not resist the claim of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their 1/4tb share in suit item 1 as also the site in item 2. They disputed the plaintiff's claim only in relation to the superstructure in item 2. Their case was that though the site in item 2 was the joint family propert...
Time-aids (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR328(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, 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, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payments made to Seymour for technical service fees in the sum of Rs. 3,333 for the assessment year 1963-64, Rs. 9,575 for each of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, Rs. 9,570 of the assessment year 1966-67 and Rs. 9,585 for the assessment year 1967-68 were not admissible as a deduction ?The assessee was incorporated as a company mainly with the object of carrying on the business of one day alarm clocks. Clocks bearing the trade marks 'West Clox', 'Ben' and 'Big Ben' are manufactured by Messrs. General Time Corporation of U. S. A. Messrs. L. D. Seymour, New York (hereinafter referred to as 'Seymour'), was the agent of Messrs. General Time Corporation of U. S. A. A representative of the assess...
Yercaud Coffee Curing Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR787(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court (T.C. No. 225 of 1972).'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding in respect of the assessment years 1956-57, 1959-60 and 1960-61 that the assessee-company was not a company in whieh the public were substantially interested ?' The assessee applied to this court in T.C.P. Nos. 22, 23, 26 and 29 of 1974 for a direction to the Tribunal to refer another question of law. This court by its order dated 28th August, 1974, directed the Tribunal to refer the following question: 'Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that it cannot be said that the declaration of a larger dividend in respect of the assessment years 1956-57, 1959-60 and 1960-61 would have been unreasonable, was erroneous in law ?'2. This question has been referred by the Tribunal pursuant to the order of this court referred to above an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »