Chennai Court September 1976 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. V. Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC373(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The only question involved in this tax revision case is, whether the calico or bookbinding cloth comes within the scope of item 4 in the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which ran as follows at the relevant time :4. All varieties of textiles (other than durries, carpets, druggets and pure silk cloth) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple fibre, rayon, artificial silk or wool including handkerchiefs, towels, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces and hosiery cloth in lengths.2. Even the Joint Commercial Tax Officer has stated that bookbinding cloth is not a simple cloth though he has also stated that it is more a binding material than a cloth. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has not given any particular reason as to why it does not come within the scope of textiles. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal reversing the conclusion of the authorities below, held that the bookbinding cloth concerned fell within ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.R. Rajaratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1976
Reported in: [1979]119ITR89(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, 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 amount of income from salary which accrued to the assessee was not more than Rs. 11,500 and Rs. 7,500 in assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively?'2. The assessee was the managing director of M/s. Tube Agencies (P.) Ltd. Under a resolution dated January 22, 1961, he was appointed as the managing director on a remuneration of Rs. 2,000 per month with effect from January 1, 1961, for a period of three years. On December 27, 1963, when the original period covered by the resolution was about to come to a close, another resolution was passed reappointing him as the managing director for a further period of three years with effect from January 1, 1964, with a pay of Rs. 2,000 per mo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras-ii Vs. N. Palaniappa Mudaliar and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR440(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - Under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :T.C. No. 427 of 1971'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay gift-tax when his share in the partnership-firm was reduced from 44 per cent. to 20 per cent. as a result of the reconstitution of the firm, by which the brother and the two sons of the assessee became partners ?'T.C. No. 3 of 1972'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay gift-tax when his share in the partnership-firm was reduced from 56 per cent. to 25 per cent. as a result of the reconstitution of the firm by which the brother and the two sons of the assessee became partners ?'The assessees in these two references were partners in a partnership engaged in plying lorries for hire and also in dea...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. A.A. Annamalai Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR574(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. Under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer by the assessee of 75 per cent. of the value of the goodwill is for consideration and there was no gift within the meaning of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that if at all there was a gift, gift-tax should be levied only on 50 per cent. of the value of the goodwill ' 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The assessee was carrying on commission business in sanna leaves and pods. He had three sons, one of whom was a major working, with him in the business for some remuneration. The two other sons are minors. He converted the proprietary business into a partnership business by taking...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Ramaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR364(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 referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of the deed as subsequently modified, the entire income from trust property is exempt from tax for the assessment years 1962-63 , and 1963-64 under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessee is the sole trustee of a trust known as ' Gnani S. Ramaswamy Iyer Charitable Trust' of which he was also the founder. The trust was created by him with the avowed intention of perpetuating the memory of his deceased father, by a charitable endowment for the benefit of poor students belonging to the Saurashtra Brahmin community. The document was dated 6th January, 1947, and that document read as follows : ' With a view to perpetuate the name and memory of my father, Gnani S. Ramasw...
Tag this Judgment!Madasami Nadar Vs. Virudhunagar Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad147; (1977)1MLJ257
1. The plaintiff who lost in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in O. S. No. 134 of 1969 on its file is the appellant. In or about the beginning of 1969, there was acute water scarcity in the Virudhunagar town which is within the jurisdiction of the Virudhunagar Municipality which is the defendant in the suit. The Council resolved on 28-2-1969 and to wit under Ex. P-17 to supply water to the public. It is common ground that at the time when the Municipality was seized of the subject, they intended that such supply should be for a period of 120 days. Bearing this in mind obviously tenders were called for the supply of such water through lorries to the residents of the town. Ex. A-1 is the tender notice. Ex. B-2 is the tender which the plaintiff gave in which he obviously quoted an offer to supply such waster for a period of 120 days. Under Ex. B-5, which is the agreement for the work in question to be performed by the plaintiff no such period however has been stipulate...
Tag this Judgment!Veerayya Pillai Vs. K. Ramanatha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad263; (1977)1MLJ513
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the suit property is not liable to be proceeded against in enforcement of the decree in O.S. 682 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mayuram. The suit property originally belonged to one Kanniah Naidu who died in 1947 leaving his wife Sulochana and a minor son Kalidoss. There was a dispute relating to the guardianship of the minor which was the subject-matter of O. P. 16 of 1948 on the file of the learned District Judge, East Tanjore. In that proceedings, the mother Sulochana was appointed as guardian. It is not also in dispute that the order of appointment prohibited the guardian from selling, leasing or otherwise encumbering the property of the minor without the sanction of the court. But contrary to this prohibition, she sold the property under Ex. A. 1 dated 16-2-1957 in favour of the plaintiff. No sanction of the court was obtained prior to the sale. The defendant in this c...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sankaranarayana Iyer and Sons and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR571(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for the opinion of this court : T.C. No. 406 of 1971 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,652 was not expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Triburial was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,506 is not allowable as a revenue expenditure ' T.C. No. 10 of 1972 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 708 is not allowable as a revenue expenditure 'T.C. No. 226 of 1972 :2. This reference has been made by the Cochin Bench under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Kuppuswamy Pillai and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR954(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 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 the profit of Rs. 67,125 which arose out of the transfer of the import licence by the assessee to a third party did not attract capital gains tax ?'2. The relevant facts are as follows : Under the National Defence Remittance Scheme, import licences were being granted against bank's certificate evidencing receipt of certain categories of foreign exchange remittances received on or after October 26, 1965, up to January 31, 1966, through banking channels by persons who were Indian nationals. The assessee had a branch at Singapore under the name and style of Engine Beedi Stores. There was a foreign exchange remittance by that branch to the assessee-firm. Under the National Defence Remittance Scheme, the assessee was given an import...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Misrimal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1551
Kailasam, C.J.1. This criminal revision ease has been posted before us, as Natarajan, J. before whom the matter originally came up, found himself unable to agree with the decision of Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., in Misrimal Hansraj v. Union of India (UOI) .2. The facts of the ease are briefly as follows. A search was conducted in the shop of the respondents on 8-12-1969 by a Preventive Officer of the Customs Department, who seized 384 wrist watches of foreign make in the reasonable belief that they had not been licitly imported into this country. Adjudication proceedings were taken by the Customs Department and after due observance of all formalities the Assistant Collector of Customs levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-on the first respondent and ordered confiscation of the wrist-watches.3. In addition to the adjudication proceedings, a criminal prosecution was also launched. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who tried the case, acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »