Chennai Court July 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.
S. Subramania Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR283(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court dated 30th March, 1970, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 47,770 as representing the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources is justified in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,000 against the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61, under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, is justified in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 11,200 against the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid and justified in law ?' 2. The facts are simple. The assessee carries on business in oil seeds. For the year ending March 31, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee filed ...
A. Venkatakrishnan and ors. Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad29
Kailasam, C. J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners have prayed for the issue of a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ declaring the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 (Act 9 of 1974) as null and void, in so tar as it affects the petitioners.2. In these Writ Petitions, the validity of Act 9 of 1074 generally, and particularly Section 4 (4) was challenged on two grounds; firstly, that the enactment was in violation of fundamental rights, and secondly, that the Pondicherry Legislature has no power to make retrospective laws. In fixing the ceiling on land holdings, Section 4 (4) provides as follows :'In calculating the extent of land held by any person, any land which was transferred by sale, gift or otherwise or partitioned by that person after the appointed day but before the commencement of this Act, shall be taken into account as if such land had not been transferred or partitioned, as the case may be.'The result of this sub-section i...
S. Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. S. Sarveswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad189; (1977)1MLJ460
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in C. M. A. NO. 205 of 1975, preferred against the order of the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The suit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein against the civil revision petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 for a declaration that the partnership firm which was carrying on business under the name and style of the Madras Standard Engineering Works has been dissolved with effect from 25-8-1975, for appointment of a Commissioner to take the account of the partnership firm and for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the partnership firm with all its asset, movables, etc., sell the same and deposit the proceeds into court for division among the partners. Along with the suit, I. A. No. 18362 of 1975 was filed under O. XL, R. 1 C. P.C., for the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the dissolved partnership business and i...
U. Foam Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. the Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad414
Balasubrahmanian, J. 1. These are appeals under S. 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellant is a private limited Company called 'U' Foam Private Limited, Hyderabad carrying on business from 1960 in the manufacture and sale of mattresses, pillows and cushions and sloe sponges, made essentially from a substance called polyurethane foam. The appellant's products were being marketed under the mark 'U' foam. In 1966 the appellant applied to the Assistant Registrar of trade Marks, Madras, for registration of two of its trade Marks in part A. One was a mark carrying the letter 'U' with a crown device on top. The other was a mark carrying the word 'U Foam' with the same crown device on top of the first letter. As resents the latter Mark. The appellant made a disclaimer of the word foam. The Assistant Registrar, however, rejected the applications. He held that the trade marks were not distinctive. His view was that the letter 'U' was merely the first letter of the comm...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. T.S. Shanmugham, (by Lr.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR237(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court tinder Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no taxable gift for 1965-66 assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gift was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act ' The assessee was the owner of a business carried on under the name and style of M/s. Norton & Company. In the course of the business he was assisted by his first son and subsequently he took the first son as a partner along with him. Later, his second son also assisted him in the business and subsequently he too was taken into the partnership. By a partnership deed dated January 1, 1962, the share of profits of the three partners was determined as 40 : 35 : 25. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banarsilal Dhawan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR360(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions of law 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 and justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,000 made by the Income-tax Officer under the head 'other sources' for 1963-64 assessment ? (2) Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,000 is based on a reasonable view of the facts and circumstances of the case ?' 2. The assessee is a dealer in crepe soles, raw rubber, etc. For the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant accounting year being the preceding financial year, he returned an income of Rs. 10,260 under 'business'. At the time of hearing before the Income-tax Officer, it was submitted for the assessee that the proviso to Section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act was applicable and that the assessee had no objection to the estimat...
P.T.C. Thangiah Nadar and Co. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad121
Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by P.T.C. Thangiah Nadar and Co., Madurai, against the judgment of Mohan J. dismissing their writ petition in which they had prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein, namely, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Madurai, to return and deliver the goods i.e., cloves weighing 42 kgs. and Vasambu weighing 100 kgs. to them (appellant) which were seized at Madurai on 3-9-1974. The only point that was taken before the learned Judge was that due notice under Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act were not given. The learned Judge negatived the contention and hence this appeal. The goods were seized on 3-9-1974.2. Under Section 110(2),'Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized.'There is a p...
The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Sri Ram Cotton Pressing Factory (P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC277(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. These two revision petitions have been preferred by the revenue against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 6th July, 1970, made in Coimbatore Tribunal Appeals Nos. 857/1965-66 and 958/1964-65 of 1968. Both the appeals were disposed of together by the Tribunal and the point arising is the same in two successive years.2. The respondent-assessees are Messrs. Sri Ram Cotton Pressing Factory (Private) Ltd. engaged in the business of pressing cotton waste. In the course of their business they had purchased hessian cloth and hoop iron to the extent of Rs. 31,643.18 in 1964-65 and Rs. 7,701 in 1965-66 and utilised the same in the packing of cotton waste pressed by them, which were given to them for such pressing by their customers. The assessing authority considered that the respondents had sold hessian cloth and hoop iron used in packing the cotton waste to the respective customers. Since the respondents had not maintained separat...
Gopalakrishnan Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ143Mad
Koshal, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be shortly stated. The petitioner was employed as a salesman by M/s. Parry's Confectionary Limited, Madras, who figures as the second respondent before me, in the year, 1952. He continued to serve them in that capacity till the 31st of December, 1968. With effect from the 1st of January, 1969, he was promoted as sales supervisor through a contract, which is evi. denced by a letter dated the 26th December, 1968, issued by the second respondent to him. The relevant portion of that letter is re-produced below;We have pleasure in informing you that it has been decided to appoint/ confirm/promote you in/to the Junior Management Staff and to place you to Cadre 'G' with effect from 1st January, 1969.2. The salaries we offer are:From 1.1-1969 to 31-12-1969.RS. 500 p.m.From 1-1-1970 to 31-12-1970 Rs. 520 p.m.From 1-1-1971 to 31-12-1971 Rs. 540 p.m.3 Additionally, you will be entitled to the Ge...
A.K. Thaga Pillai and ors. Vs. Superintendent, Regulated Market of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1375
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioners in all the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution launched in support of those petitions now pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet may be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 Cri- minal P. C. (New Code), As the only ground on which they seek the remedy by these petitions is a common one, namely, the question of limitation regarding the institutions of the prosecution cases before the said Court, all these petitions are clubbed together and common order is passed.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 307, 289 and 357 of 1975 are filed in respect of the proceedings taken in C. C. Nos. 505, 506 and 508 of 1974 now pending on the file of the said Court. In all these cases, the Superintendent, Regulated Market of the South Arcot Market Committee, Kallakurichi is the complainant.3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »