Chennai Court April 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.
A. Syed Amir and anr. Vs. Shanmughasundara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ361
S. Suryamurthy, J.1. Shanmughasundara Mudaliar, the respondent in these two revision petitions, who purchased the premises in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 30,000 filed three H.R.C.O.Ps to evict therefrom the tenants, who were in occupation of different parts of the building, alleging inter alia that he required the building for his own use and occupation as well as for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants contended inter alia that the building were not required for demolition and reconstruction or for the landlord's own use and occupation and that there was no valid notice to quit. By a common order in all the three petitions, the learned Rent Controller held that valid notices to quit had been given to the tenants, that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation after demolition and reconstruction and that the tenants are liable to be evicted. He, therefore, allowed all the three petitions and ordered eviction of the tenants granting one mo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carborundum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR621(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ', has stated a case and 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 sum of Rs. 17,575 contributed by the assessee-company to the U.K. Carborundum Company Superannuation Fund is deductible while computing the profits or gains of the business of the assessee under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a company and it carried on the business of manufacture and sale of abrasives. It entered into technical assistance and collaboration agreement with the foreign company by name Corborundum Company under which it received technical information and know-how with respect to the manufacture of bonded abrasive products and coated abrasive products. One of the terms of the agreement...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR972(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. Both these references raise the same question of law though they relate to two different assessees and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in respect of these two assessees is a common order. In the first reference the question of law referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,69,996 and Rs. 62,563 in the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, respectively, received as deposits in the first instance and forfeited at a later stage, was not the income of the assessee liable to tax but that the assessee was entitled to take them into account in arriving at the cost of securities acquired by the assessee when these sums were forfeited ?'2. In the latter reference, the question referred for the opinion of this court is:...
A.K. Srinivasa Naidu Vs. S. Jayarama Reddiar Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad56
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, on the strength of dealings in cotton trade between himself and the defendant between December of 1961 and June of 1967, claimed the suit amount as per a statement of account, which consists of two parts, one a statement of account as reflected in their account books kept in the regular course of business and another account said to be interest account, which was arrived at after calculation by the plaintiff himself. On the basis of the above said two accounts, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 65,222-77 in all. In paragraph 5 of the plaint he pleaded thus:--'Though some of the items are more than 3 years from the date of suit the subsequent receipts were appropriated towards satisfaction of such items. Further by a notice issued on behalf of defendants on 7-11-1968, through their counsel and signed by defendant also, the defendant has acknowledged his liability and also a payment of Rs.60,000 made by him towards par...
A.K. Srinivasa Naidu Vs. S. Jayarama Reddiar Firm by Its Registered Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ166
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, on the strength of dealings in cotton trade between himself and the defendant between December of 1961 and June of 1967, claimed the suit amount as per a statement of account, which consists of two parts, one a statement of account as reflected in their account books kept in the regular course of business and another account said to be interest account, which was arrived at after calculation by the plaintiff himself. On the basis of the above two said accounts, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 65,222-77 in all. In paragraph 5 of the plaint he pleaded thus:Though some of the items are more than 3 years from the date of suit the Subsequent receipts are appropriated towards satisfaction of such items. Further by a notice issued on behalf of defendant on 7th November, 1968 through their counsel and signed by defendant also, the defendant had acknowledged his liability and also a payment of Rs. 60,000 made by him towa...
Nilgiris Potato Growers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR375(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members. It is exempt from income-tax and super-tax in respect of profits and gains of the business carried on by it by virtue of sections 81 and 99 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was in force in the relevant year. We are considering in this reference the assessment for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assessee on 20th of August, 1963, computing the total income as follows :Interest on securitiesBusinessOther sourcesRs.Rs.Rs.1,7232,40,695236Total income Rs. 2,42,654As mentioned earlier, since the assessee was not liable to income-tax and super-tax with reference to its business profits, the Income-tax Officer levied the tax on the aggregate of interest from securities, Rs.1,723, and other sources, Rs. 236, in all Rs. 1,959. The tax was worked out as foll...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deghamwala Estates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR416(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has stated a case and referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the two persons, M/s. Sidhpurwala and Badruddin Mohammed Ali did not constitute an association of persons and that the capital gains on sale of property held by them as 'co-owners' was not liable to tax as association of persons ?'2. One M. A. Deghamwala died intestate on June 17, 1957. T.M. Sidhpurwala, Badruddin Mohammed Ali, Mariam Bi, Sarifa Bai, and Sakina Bai were the heirs of the deceased, and inherited his properties under the Mohammedan law. On 22nd December, 1959, Mariam Bi, Sarifa Bai and Sakina Bai executed a deed of release relating their rights, title and interest in the properties left by Deghamwala in favour of Sidhpurwala and Badruddin Mohammed Ali. Thes...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Nursing Home
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR86(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deed of partnership dated April 1, 1961, could be said to be illegal or opposed to public policy and hence the firm could be refused registration ?'2. One Dr. Sudhakar Rao, an eminent doctor of Coimbatore and his two sons, Jayakar Rao and Pradeep Rao, entered into a partnership by deed dated 1st April, 1961, and started running a nursing home under the name and style of 'Sree Ramakrishna Nursing Home'. Dr. Sudhakar Rao was the senior partner and his two sons, at the time when the partnership was entered into, were studying in the medical colleges, one at Udipi and the other at Pondicherry. The partnership deed constituted Dr. Sudhakar Rao as the senior partner as well as the managing partner. The deed stated that the obje...
Sornathayammal Vs. Veerana thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad97
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the landowner against the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Madurai, in T. C. T. P. No. 237 of 1972, D/- 26-4-1973 allowing the petition by the tenant (Respondent herein) under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1972 and directing restoration of possession by the land-owner to the tenant.2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision petition are as follows:--The tenant was cultivating 3-51 acres of wet lands belonging to the landowner. Due to default in payment of rent, the landowner filed a petition under Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act of 1955 and an order of eviction was passed in T. C. T. P. No. 163 of 1970, D/- 14-2-1972. The tenant took the matter up to the High Court and the High Court in C. M. P. No. 3819 of 1972 pending C. R. P. No. 823 of 1972 ordered interim stay directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- into the trial Court within one month of 6-7-1972 as direct...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late Mrs. Oakshott
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR126(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the;following question of law under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act' forthe opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such interest as Mrs. K. A. Oakshott had in the estate of her late husband was an asset located in the taxable territory so as to attract estate duty ?' 2. One Mr. O. T. Oakshott died in England on 22nd October, 1951, Onhis death, estate duty was levied in U. K. on his entire estate whichincluded 1,167 ordinary shares of Spencer and Co. Ltd., as on its Madrasregister and 71,340 ordinary shares of that company on its London registerand 2,780 'A' preference shares and 5,855 'B' perference shares on thecompany's London register. Mr. Oakshott has left behind him a will datedApril 22, 1952. Executors have been appointed under the will. Soonafter his death, the executors took into custody all the assets belonging to thedeceased. In 1956 itself the executors got the shar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »