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.
P. Palaniswami Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR811(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 questions of law for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner's letter constituted information for re-opening the assessment under Section 147(b) especially when the Income-tax Officer had referred to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated March 5, 1966, for re-opening the assessment? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner's letter dated May 13, 1966, constituted information from an extraneous source within the meaning of section 147(b)? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings are valid notwithstanding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated ...
Hamsaveni Ammal and ors. Vs. S. Rajagopal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ207
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff's are the appellants. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. They claimed the right on the basis of a will dated 22nd June, 1924 executed by one Padmanabha Chettiar. The testator's wife was one Dhanalakshmi Ammal and they had a daughter by name Rajalakshmi Ammal. There was a bequest in favour of Rajalaksmi Ammal and after her in favour of her male children. It is the const ruction of the will that is in question in this second appeal. If Rajalakshmi Ammal had a life estate under the will then there is no dispute that the plaintiffs would be entitled as the children of one of the sons of Rajalakshmi Ammal to one half of the suit propertes. If Rajalaksmi Ammal had absolute estate under the will, then since she purported to execute a bequeathing those properties in favour of the defendant, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to any share. The relevant clause in the will reads as follows:It was the case of the plaintiff's that Rajalakshmi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR301(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. By these petitions under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, requests the court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to refer 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 in cancelling the penalties levied under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee cannot be charged with the concealment of wealth ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act should not be levied on the assessee because penalty for concealment of income was not levied on him ? 4. ...
S. Ahmed Khabeer Rowther Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR984(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. By these two petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee requests the court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether it was competent for the Tribunal to give a finding as to the rate of gross profit and whether there is material for holding that Rs. 46,500 was the suppressed profits of the business of the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1961-62 ? 2. Whether the peak credit of Rs. 46,500 should be treated as having come out of the intangible addition of Rs. 53,000 made in the earlier year's assessment ?' 2. The short facts that give rise to these questions are as follows :The petitioner herein is a dealer in paddy and rice having his head office at Coimbatore and branches at Singarampalayam and Palghat. For the assessment year 1961-62, the turnover was Rs. 13,87,087 and the gross profit shown by the assessee was less than 2%. The Income-tax Officer found that the gro...
P.N. Dorairaj and ors. Vs. N.G. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad243; (1977)1MLJ198
1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11.048-26 on the foot of a promissory note dated 21-10-1966 executed by the defendants. The facts leading to the execution of the promissory note are as follows. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 entered into a partnership. But the terms of the partnership were not reduced to writing. The parties also had not let in any oral evidence to show as to what was the object of business of the partnership. But it is seen from the notices exchanged between the parties and the licences issued under the Cinematograph Act, they were running a touring cinema under the name and style 'Shanthi Talkies'. The licence issued under the Madras Cinema (Regulation) Act 1955 was in the name of the second defendant and is dated 11-12-1965 and the licence covered a period from 13-2-1965 to 18-2-1966. Though the licence is in the name of the second defendant the cinema business was run by the partners...
C.T. Chidambaram and ors. Vs. the General Manager, Indian Bank and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ517
G. Ramanujam, J.1. As the questions involved in all the writ petitions are the same, they are disposed of together.2. The respondent called for applications from eligible candidates for the posts of typists and secured hands like cashiers and go down keepers prescribing certain qualifications. The petitioners in all the above writ petitions satisfied all the prescribed qualifications and, therefore, applied for appointment to the said posts. They were asked to sit for a written test. Thereafter they were asked to appear before a Selection Committee for interview. The petitioners appeared for the test and the interview before the Selection Committee. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 768 of 1974 had applied for the post of typist and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 745 and 746 of 1975 had applied for the post of cashiers and godown keepers in the category of secured hands. Their names were not, however, found in the list of successful candidates selected for appointment to the different ...
R.D. Shawani Vs. Mahaveer Banians Stores and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ25
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the landlord. He filed H.R.C. No. 1297 of 1972 against the respondents for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in respect of a portion at Door No. 100, God own Street, Madras-1. The contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents are only licensees who got into the portion paying Rs. 8,000 for a period of eleven months was given up even at the time of filing the eviction petition owing to the fact that the respondents in their reply notice took the stand that they are only licensees under the petitioner. Treating the respondents as tenants, the petitioner filed the eviction petition, as stated above. After terminating the tenancy by giving one month's notice ending with 30th April, 1972, alleging that he bona fide required the portion under the occupation of the respondents for his additional accommodation, the petitioner filed th...
The Singanallur Municipality Vs. the Vasantha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad134
1. These three second appeals raise an important question of law concerning the interpretation of the proviso to Sec. 82(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The plaintiffs in the three suits, who are Mills, were assessed to property tax by the Singanallur Municipality by its Special Officer. According to the Mills, the assessment of property tax was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and therefore the assessment was illegal and void. They filed the suits O. S. Nos. 1278 of 1968, 1402 of 1968 and 1192 of 1968 praying for a declaration that the basis of the taxation was illegal as the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. The Municipality contended that tax was assessed according to the proviso to Sec. 82(2) of the Act as the buildings in question were of a class not ordinarily let, the gross annual rent of which could not, in the opinion of the executive authority, be estimated. The trial court dismissed th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Mookammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR581(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference is under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act. The following question of law has been referred 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 neither Section 10 nor Section of the Instate Duty Act, 1953, was applicable to include the entire value of the properties of Rs. 7,50,912 under 'free estate' in the dutiable estate of the deceased, M. Kalyanasundaram Pillai ?'2. One Draviam Pillai and Thayamanaswami Pillar were sons of two brothers. They continued to be joint even after the death of their respective fathers. Draviam Pillai had a wife by name Ponnammal. Thayamanaswami Pillai was married thrice. The first wife's name is not known.3. But she died long ago. By his second wife, Mangayarkarasi, he had a daughter by name Pichammal. His third wife was Kanni Ammal. Picham-mal, the daughter of Thayamanaswami Pillai, was married as the second wife to one Muthu...
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Narayanaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad72
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The plaintiff's legal representative is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the suit property which is said to measure an extent of one acre 98 cents. It is not in dispute that this property originally belonged to one Joseph De. Gonzaga who will hereinafter be referred to as Joseph. The plaintiff purchased the property from one John De. Gonzaga, hereinafter referred to as John, who is the son of Joseph, through a lady by name Roger under the sale deed dated 6-6-1962. The second defendant claimed title to the same property under a sale deed dated 7-2-1959 executed by one Piere who is the son of Joseph through another lady, Arumaikannu. The third defendant is the sister of the said Piere and the 4th defendant is a pre-deceased sister's son of the said Piere. Joseph, Roger and Arumaikannu are admittedly French Citizens governed by the French Civil laws. It was the case of the second defendant that Joseph was married to Arumaikannu long prior...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »