Chennai Court March 1976 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. Dasaprakash.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR210(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 37,390 was not not capital nature but it was an expenditure incurred by the assessee wholly for the purposes of its business and allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is a firm carrying on the business of running a hotel. That hotel business was previously run by one Seetharama Rao and subsequently it was converted into a partnership. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1965-66, the relevant previous year ending on 31st March, 1965. The expenditure which is now in dispute has been described as follows :Rs. 8,990Putting decorated mirrors with pictures of religious personages in the pink hall of ...
Tag this Judgment!Late T.S. Srinivasa Iyer (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: [1976]104ITR625(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee filed returns under the Wealth-tax Act for the five assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67. As per these returns the liabilities exceeded the value of the assets as on the relevant valuation dates, except in the assessment year 1962-63. The Wealth-tax Officer proposed to revalue the assets as per Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee contended that, if the assets have to be revalued at the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date as provided in Section 7, the capital gains tax payable on such valuation should be reduced from the total value in ascertaining the net wealth. This contention was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer and he ascertained the aggregate value of the assets with reference to the price which they would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date as provided under Section 7. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was also of the view that the question of deducting capital gains ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Blue Star Engineering Co. Madras Private Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC194(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two tax revision cases arise out of the sales tax assessments for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. They are on identical facts and, therefore, it is enough to consider the facts of one year and to apply the conclusion arrived at therein for the other.2. In making the assessment on the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67, the assessing authority taxed the sales of drawing office equipment amounting to Rs. 83,633.75 at 6 1/2 per cent. Later on, he found that this equipment had to be treated as duplicating machine and assessed to tax at 11 per cent. He, therefore, took action under Section 16. The nature of this equipment has been described in an affidavit filed by the manager of the assessee-company, who is a qualified engineer, which runs as follows:The drawing office equipment works on electrical circuit with the voltage of 220-230. Light from the astralon tube/the actinic lamp is released to pass through a spring loaded roller mounted with the spec...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Vs. Kalidas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad108; (1977)1MLJ46
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, dismissing the petition under O. 9, R. 13 C.P.C., filed by the defendant in the suit to set aside a decree passed on 24-1-1975, which according to the revision petitioner, the defendant, is only an ex parte decree.2. S. C. No. 115 of 1974 on the file of the Court Pondicherry was instituted by the respondents herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 540/- due as arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendant. Subsequently, at the stage of the trial, the defendant was absent and the counsel for the defendant was also absent on 24-1-1975. Instead of setting the defendant ex parte and passing an ex parte decree, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Pondicherry purported to decree the suit as prayed for under O. 17, R. 3 C.P.C., after P.W. 1 was examined and Ex. A-1 was marked. He did not even hold that the claim had been proved. Subsequently the petition for setting...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Customs Vs. Mehta Paint Works and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad61; (1977)1MLJ15
Kailasam, Offg. C.J.1. The Collector of Customs, Madras, who was the first respondent in the writ petition, is the appellant in the writ appeal. The first respondent herein, Mehta Paint Works, filed W. P. 1706 of 1967 impleading the Collector of Customs, and the Port Trust, Madras, for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Collector of Customs, to issue a detention certificate in favour of the first respondent herein and permitting the first respondent to clear the consignment without paying the demurrage charges. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the issue of a rule in the nature of mandamus directing the Collector of Customs to issue a detention certificate for the period from 10-1-1967 to 12-4-1967. The learned Judge further directed that the first respondent herein, on the basis of the said certificate, would be entitled to the necessary adjustments in the matter of payment of demurrage charges to the Port trust on the goods in question, Against this ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raman and Raman (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR747(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on transport business and having also income from servicing of vehicles and execution of jobs for others. In the assessment year 1960-61, the company also extended its activity to undertaking coach building as well. In respect of assessment years 1956-57 to 1960-61, the Income-tax Officer added a portion of the remuneration and bonus paid to three of the directors purporting to act under Section 10(4A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Though the Income-tax Officer held that the payment of the remuneration could be supported as having been wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business under Section 10(2)(xv) and the payment of bonus satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section 10(2)(x) of the Act, he was of the view that the payment was excessive and unreasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company and the benefit derived by or accruing to the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Loonkaran and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR92(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of six partners. The senior-most partner was one Loonkaran aged about 65 years in the year under consideration. It appears that he was generally not keeping good health. His eldest son, Moolchand, who was also a partner was normally attending to the income-tax assessment of the firm. For the assessment year 1963-64, the previous year ended on Diwali day in the month of November, 1962. The Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal have stated that the return in such a case was due on 30th September, 1963. On 13th August, 1963, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the notice was received by the assessee on 20th August, 1963. The return was due under the said notice by 24th September, 1963. Moolchand suffered from an attack of jaundice some time in 1963. The return had not been filed even in August, 1964. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer i...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Narayanan, Etc., Etc. Vs. Accountant-general I and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ501Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J. 1. As these three writ petitions are connected, they are dealt with together,2. The petitioners are auditors in the office of the Accountant-General, I, Tamilnadu, the first respondent in these petitions. One of their avenues of promotion is post of Section Officer which is a selection post. For such a promotion one of the requirements is that one should have passed the S.A.S. examination Parts I and II held by the third respondent which is conducted practically every year. The qualification for taking the S.A.S. examination Part II are as follows :(1) A pass in Part I of the S.A.S. examination.(2) Three months training in Public Works Division.3. The petitioners possess these qualifications and they applied for admission to the S.A.S. examination Part II scheduled to be held in November, 1074. But they were intimated that the departments has not accepted their candidature for the said S.A.S. Part II examination. As regards the petitioner in W.P. No 3677 of 1974, it ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Wakf Board, Madras Vs. Subramanyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad79
1. All these second appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned District Munsif of Pattukottai in O. S. Nos. 784, 786, 788 and 790 of 1967 and the appeals arising therefrom on the file of the Court of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur. The appellant in all these second appeals is one and the same, namely, the State Wakf Board, Madras, represented by its Secretary. The suits were instituted for recovery of the properties involved in these suits. According to the appellant, the properties were Wakf properties; they have been alienated by one Sheik Dawood illegally and unauthorised, and therefore the appellant was entitled to recover possession of those properties. The defence put forward by the various defendants are reflected in the following issues framed for trial by the trial Courts:(1) Whether the suit properties are part of the Wakf properties belonging to Asarpakkiri Thaikkal?(2) If the suit properties are Wakf properties whether the defendants have ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Wakf Board, Superseded by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ263
M.M. Ismail, J.1. All these second appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned District Munsif of Pattukottai in O.S. Nos. 784, 786, 788 and 790 of 1967 and the appeals arising therefrom on the file of the Court of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur. The appellant in all these second appeals is one and the same, namely, the State Wakf Board, Madras, represented by its Secretary. The suits were instituted for recovery of the properties involved in these suits. According to the appellant, the properties were wakf properties, they have been alienated by one Sheik Dawood illegally and unauthorisedly, and therefore the appellant was entitled to recover possession of those properties. The defence put forward by the various defendants are reflected in the following issues framed for trial by the trial Court:(1) Whether the suit properties are part of the wakf properties belonging to Asarpakkiri Thaikkal?(2) If the suit properties are wakf properties whether the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »