Chennai Court March 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.R. and P. Shanmugavel Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC391(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in coconuts. For the assessment year 1963-64, he submitted a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 49,876.63. The assessing officer on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce proper accounts, rejected the accounts and assessed the turnover on best of judgment basis. He was of the view that the lease amount for the year was Rs. 33,471.86 and that an addition of 100 per cent to the lease amount would be a proper determination of the taxable turnover. Accordingly, he determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 66,943.72. The assessee preferred an appeal questioning the addition of Rs. 17,172.09. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, agreeing with the assessing authority, held that the accounts maintained by the assessee cannot be taken as correct and complete and that, therefore, the assessing officer has rightly rejected the accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also confirmed the addition on the ground that there were details availa...
Vasudevan and anr. Vs. the District Judge South Arcot
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ678
ORDERRatnavelpandian, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in P.R.C. 11 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore, have preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 14-9-1973 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No. 1135 of 1973, in the above case, concluding that the complaint given by the learned District Judge, South Arcot, Cuddalore under Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is perfectly right and not hit by Section 479-A (6), Criminal Procedure Code, and dismissing the said petition filed by the present petitioners.2. To appropriate the petition, I feel that a synopsis of the facts of the complaint, which led to the above petition, is necessary. One Smt. Sabiya Bibi, wife of one Mohamed Hanifa Sahib of Andikuppam village, Cuddalore Taluk, filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 766 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, against Vasudevan, the first petitioner herein, for the recovery of possession of the suit property with damages for use ...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ467
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees in this case are dealers in dyes, chemicals and paints. For the assessment year 1962-63, they were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 77,88,952-92 and Rs. 55,00,622-48 respectively. Allowing an exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 22,88,330-44, later on, the assessing officer sought to revise the assessment on the ground that exemption had wrongly been allowed on a turnover of Rs. 86,516-14 on account of second sales of ammonium chloride. The assessee had purchased from Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries (I.) Pvt. Limited the said ammonium chloride. It is not in dispute that the seller Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries Private Limited, was assessed on the turnover relating to the sales of ammonium chloride under item 21 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as the first sale in the State. The assessing officer in the re-assessment proceeding was of the view that only if ammonium chloride is sold ...
Thankaswamy Padayachi and anr. Vs. Sridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ697
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The respondent B-Party in M.C. 13/1974 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Chidambaram, have filed this revision petition seeking to revise the order of the lower Court under Section 147(3), Criminal Procedure Code directing the channel in dispute to be restored and the obstruction to the path to be re-moved.2. The respondent herein belonging to A-party filed a petition under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the lower Court to restore to its original position the obliterated patta channel running south of R.S. 106/1 and 106/3 and north of R.S. 106/6, 106/10 and 106/11 and ending in R.S. 104/3 of Chinnanergunam village, Chidambaram taluk, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the lower Court, for irrigation purposes and also to restore the fence put up in R.S. 107/1 of the said village for the free usage of pedestrians and for taking cattle for agricultural operations. Both parties filed their respective...
Ramalakshmi Ammal Vs. Seeniya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad34
1. This second appeal has been filed by 7th defendant in the suit. There are two questions which arise, viz., whether Article 61(a) or 61(b) of the Limitation Act of 1963, applies to the present proceedings, and if Article 61(b) is held to apply, whether the suit is within time.2. The facts are in a short compass. One Madathi Ammal purchased the suit property measuring 1 acre 98 cents for Rs. 800 on 15-7-1922 under Ex. B-3. She executed a usufructuary mortgage of this property in favour of her sister Meenakshi Ammal on 26-11-1928 for Rs. 500/- under Ex. B1. It was provided in the usufructuary mortgage deed that the time for redemption was by 30th Adi, 1105 M. E. (14-8-1930) and that if the mortgage was not redeemed by then, the property would become the absolute property of the mortgage. The mortgage was not redeemed by 14-8-1930 and the mortgagee Meenakshi Ammal sold the said property in 18-8-1933 to one Karuppaswami under Ex. B-4. Karuppuswami executed a gift deed in favour of the 7t...
A. Y. S. Parisutha Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR441(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The petitioner herein had settled an extent of 83.62 acres of land in favour of his wife, as per settlement deed dated November 16, 1954. After the settlement, the petitioner was paying composition, as provided for in section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, instead of assessed tax. It is represented that similarly the petitioner's wife also was paying the composition amount. However, with regard to the assessment in question the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in exercise of his powers under section 34 of the Act suo motu revised the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and held that under the provisions of section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Act read with the proviso to section 65(7), the lands settled on the wife were to be included in the lands retained by the petitioner herein for the purpose of calculating the composition amount. Accordingly, he directed the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to redetermine the amount payable by the assesse...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC285(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1962-63, the assessees, who are dealers in electric and electro medical goods, submitted return in form I under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, reporting a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 75,56,894.89 and Rs. 32,55,691.66 respectively. The gross turnover of Rs. 75,56,894.89 reported by the assessees included the turnover of Rs. 24,54,389.12, which represented import transactions. In the return they did not claim any exemption in respect of this turnover on any ground or that it represented the sales in the course of import. The assessing authority disallowing certain other turnovers which were not included in the taxable turnover determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 57,77,434.12. The assessees preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disputing the liability to tax the turnover of Rs. 24,76,195, which was disallowed by the assessing authority, but did not raise any dispute relating to the turnover of...
A. Subba Naidu Vs. Rajammal Alias Thayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad64
1. The trial court and the appellate court have concurrently found against the plaintiff, the appellant herein, and dismissed his suit for possession and for means profits. As may be presently seen, the dismissal of the suit purely due to a failure of the courts below to understand the scope of Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.2. The appellant's suit came to be filed in the following circumstances: One Ayyalu Naidu derived some properties in a family partition as evidenced by Ex. A-2 dated 26-9-1938. He had two wifes, Krishnachi Ammal who is the mother of the respondent and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the appellant. He died on 10-1-1939 leaving the appellant as the sole copartner of the erstwhile joint family. The suit properties which are of an extent of 1.56 acres were given sometime after the death of Ayyalu Naidu to Krishnachi Ammal for enjoying the usufruct therefrom towards her maintenance Krishnachi Ammal died on 19-11-1969. Thereafter the a...
A. Subbu Naidu Vs. Rajammal Alias Thayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ205
S. Natarajan, J.1. The trial Court and the appellate Court have concurrently found against the plaintiff, the appellant herein and dismissed his suit for possession and for mesne profits. As may be presently seen, the dismissal of the suit is purely due to a failure of the Court below to understand the scope of Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.2. The appellant's suit came to be filed in the following circumstances. One Ayyalu Naidu derived some properties in a family partition as evidenced by Exhibit A-2 dated 26th September, 1938. He had two wives, Krishnachi Amir al who is the mother of the respondent and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the appellate. He died on 10th January, 1939 leaving the appellant as the sole coparcener of the erstwhile joint family. T he suit properties which are of an extent of 1.56 acres were given sometime after the death of Ayyalu Naidu to Krishnachi Ammal for enjoying the usufruct therefrom towards her maintenance. Krishna...
Sri Srinivasa Sales Circulation Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC359(Mad)
ORDER FORMNo. 17435 D. . Regd. No, SRI SRINIVASA SALES CIRCULATION (Regd.) No. 11, Gandhi Street, Villivakkam, Madras-49.FromDear Sirs, As mentioned in your list of articles No... I request you to kindly sendme... Please send your coupons by V.P.L. for the amount of Rs. 16.00 sent by me.Place :. Yours faithfully,Date: Signature : Canvasser's signature.5. On payment of a sum of Rs. 5, a coupon is given to the individual, let us say A. He fills up the coupon giving his address and mentioning the number and name of the article in the blank spaces and sends it back to the company. On receipt of this coupon order form, as stated in the coupon itself, three order forms are sent to A by V.P.L. for Rs. 16. When that V.P.L. is cleared by A, he receives a further letter from the company, which reads as follows:We are glad to note that you have cleared the V.P.L. No. by paying Rs. 16 and thank you very much for the same.You please sell three order forms to three members and take that money. Fill...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »