Chennai Court August 1976 Judgments
Kannapiran Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR947(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that, in respect of the monies borrowed by the assessee from Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. and outstanding on the first day of the previous year, a sum of Rs. 5,71,747 in not liable to be included as capital computed for the purpose of assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The facts which have given rise to the above question are fairly simple The assessee-company commenced acquiring fixed assets like machinery and buildings from 1949. It augmented its resources consisting of share capital by accepting loans often called fixed deposits from var...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasa Pillai Vs. Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad381
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 6/69 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, is the appellant. A policy of insurance Ex. A-4 was accepted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) under the following circumstances. The plaintiff and his wife late Ranganayagi took out a joint life endowment assurance policy for Rs. 25,000 and paid the premium for the first quarter and obtained a receipt on 31-12-1959. Ranganayagi however died a few days later, to wit, on 17-1-1960. On information about the death, the Corporation made certain investigations and found that the policy has to be repudiated since certain material facts which the insured have to furnish were not given and certain other representations which were peculiarly within the personal knowledge of the insured were incorrectly stated. The Corporation would also take up the position that Ranganayagi who was suffering from tuberculosis suppresse...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramaswami Udayar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1976
Reported in: [1979]116ITR493(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a combined reference under the Income-tax Act as well as the Gift-tax Act. The assessment years involved are 1959-60 and 1961-62. Even at the outset we may mention that it would be highly desirable if the Tribunal made a reference under the distinct Acts separately. In this reference four questions have been referred to this court for its opinion. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in taking the view that the transaction between the asssessee-family and the company was in the nature of a sale or a transfer ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the action under Section 147(b) in respect of 1961-62 was valid in law ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was Tight in its view that there was a gift which was taxable according to the provisions of the Gift-tax Act and(4) Whether, on the facts and in th...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajan and ors. Vs. K.A.N. Srinivasa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad402
1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants. The first respondent plaintiff filed O. S. No. 379of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Kancheepuram for a declaration that he is the lessee of the suit lands on the basis of a lease deed dated 15-10-1964 given by the owner, Namasivaya Chettiar. The lease was stated to be for a period of ten years. When the lessor and his brothers tried to take forcible possession of the properties, the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 37 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif of Kancheepuram for an injunction restraining the lessor and his brothers from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. When that suit was pending, the dependants in. S. No. 379 of 1970 tried to trespass and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and, therefore, he filed O. S. No. 379 of 1970 for a declaration that he is a lessee in respect of the suit lands and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnappa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ406
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The acquisition in the instant case is for formation of a Harijan Colony. Section 4 (1) notification was made on 22nd January, 1975. Notice relating to enquiry under Section 5-A was served on the petitioner on 14th March, 1975, informing that the enquiry would take place-on 10th April, 1975. The petitioner preferred his objections. However, the enquiry was adjourned to 30th May, 1975. At that stage the present writ petition has been preferred to quash the notification under Section 4(1) dated 22nd January, 1975.2. The only contention that is urged by Mr. P. Narasimhan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a violation of the Board's Standing Order 90, paragraph (9), in that thirty days' time had not elapsed from the date of service of the notice of Section 5-A enquiry. This contention is not tenable for two reasons. All that the Board's Standing Order 90, paragraph (9) states, is:Immediately after the publication of the notification under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!T. A. Devaki Ammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR403(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, has 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 justified in law in upholding the assessment of the value of the life interest in the property of the deceased at No. 267, Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose Road ?'The facts which have given rise to this question are simple. Under a deed of settlement dated November 18, 1954, Srimathi Vadakapattu Annammal, wife of late Rajavelu Mudaliar, who was the owner of premises bearing door No. 267, China Bazar Road alias Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose Road, Esplanade, Madras, settle the same in favour of two beneficiaries. The first beneficiary was her own daughter, the accountable person, and the second beneficiary is the son of the first beneficiary. Under the terms of the settlement, she reserved a life interest in her own favour and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR846(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty was imposable under Section 271(1)(a) looking to the interpretation ci the word ' month' ?'2. The controversy which gives rise to this question is simple. The matter relates to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer served on the assessee-company a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on June 17, 1961. The company applied for extension of time for filing the return of income through various letters filed from time to time. Thus, by a letter dated August 16, 1961, the company requested for time up to October 31, 1961. By another letter dated November 1, 1961, it aga...
Tag this Judgment!P. Raju Vs. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad62
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He is the tenant under the defendant in respect of one room bearing shop No. 2 in premises No. 61 Arappalayam Cross Road, Madurai town. The landlord was using the remaining building for the purpose of his business as also his residence. He filed a petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, for eviction of the tenant on 3-4-1968 and this was numbered as R. C. O. P. 273 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai town, who was the Rent Controller. The two grounds on which the petition for eviction was sought for are willful default in the payment of rent falling under Section 10 (2) (i) and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation for the landlord's occupation for carrying on his business falling under Section 10 (3) (c). It does not appear that a counter-statement was filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 273 of 1968. At any rate, there is no evidence in these pro...
Tag this Judgment!S. B. S. Jayam and Co., Represented by Its Managing Partner S. B. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ286
N. S. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a suit for a permanent-injunction and other reliefs is respect of a registered trade mark. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trade mark 'Gopal Tooth Powder'. The allegation is that the defendant who is carrying on business in Nakrekal Post, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh is infringing the said trade mark. It is stated that the defendant is' marketing tooth powder under the mark 'Gobi Tooth Powder' with a label which is either similar to the plaintiff's mark or a colourable imitation thereof. The defendant has raised several pleas and on the whole seven issues were settled for trial. But the first issue which is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court was taken up as a preliminary issue.2. Admittedly the defendant is carrying on business in tooth powder only in Andhra Pradesh and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant's goods entered the market here. It is not in dispute that the defendant is using the mark 'G...
Tag this Judgment!P. Raju Vs. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ435
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He is the tenant under the defendant in respect of one room bearing shop No. 2 in premises No. 61, Arappalayam Cross Road, Madurai town. The landlord was using the remaining building for the purpose of his business as also his residence. He filed a petition under section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, for eviction of the tenant on 3rd April, 1968 and this was numbered as R.C.O.P. No. 275 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Madurai town, who was the Rent . Controller. The two grounds on which the petition for eviction was sought for are wilful default in the payment of rent falling under section 10(2) (i) and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation for the landlord's occupation for carrying on his business falling under section 10 (3) (c). It does not appear that a counter-statement was filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 273 of 1968. At any rate, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »