Chennai Court September 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ43
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu has preferred this Tax Revision Petition under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Act (I of 1959) against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19th January, 1971. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein was dealing in sea foods in Kerala. Under the export promotion scheme be obtained an import licence for import of paper and paper boards in respect of the export of sea foods made by him. He utilised that licence by importing paper and paper boards and sold the same to Basanth Paper House, Madras. The turnover with reference to this transaction was Rs. 49,358.57 and sales tax was assessed at 2 per cent. thereof. The dealer preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. When the respondents preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the late Kurwath Damodaran being a dealer ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Velayutha Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR468(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 30, 1971, holding that cashew trees are not fruit-bearing trees, but nut-bearing trees. The question arose in the context of the assessability of the respondent herein to agricultural income-tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Section 10(1) of the said Act exempts a personholding land not exceeding 12 1/2 standard acres from the operation of the Act. The expression 'standard acre' has been defined in Clause (vv) of' Section 2 as meaning, among others, two acres of tope. The word 'tope' itself has been defined in Clause (y) of Section 2 as meaning 'any land containing large groups of fruit trees or valuable timber trees, whether growing spontaneously or grown artificially and includes orchards.' In the present case, the respondent herein was admitt...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools (India) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR386(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, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to thededuction of 8 per cent. from its income from priority industries under Section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68 ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture of dressers, cutting tools and lapping wheels, which is a priority industry mentioned in Schedule V to the Act, Item 8. For the assessment year 1967-68 the assessee-company returned an income of Rs. 2,45,431 from such priority industry and claimed a deduction of 8% thereon under Section 80E of the Act. The company had also received interest on securities amounting to Rs. 350 for the accounting year relevant to the ass...
Kali Gounder Vs. Palani Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad266
1. The third defendant in O. S. 1353 of 1968, 234 of 1969 and 952 of 1969 who succeeded in the trial court but failed in the lower appellate court is the appellant. S. A. 17, 18 and 19 of 1974, arise out of A. S. 6, 7 and 8 of 1973, which arose out of O. S. 1353 of 1968, 952 of 1969 and 234 of 1969 respectively.2. O. S. 1353 of 1968 was filed by Palani Gounder, the first respondent in S. A. 17 of 1974 against four persons viz., Seeranga Gounder, Sellammal, Kali Gounder and Muthu Gounder for setting aside a summary claim order passed in E. P. 406 of 1968 in O. S. 752 of 1966 on the file of the trial court on 21-8-1968. O. S. 952 of 1969 and 234 of 1969 were filed by the alienees from Palani Gounder for setting aside the same summary order. The suit property belonged on one Ramaswami Gounder who was indebted to several persons. The said Ramaswami Gounder filed I. P. 23 of 1956 in the Sub Court, Salem, for getting himself adjudicated as an insolvent. During the pendency of that petition, ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Gowrishankar Damani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR649(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, 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, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty could be imposed in this case under Section 60(l)(c) of the Estate Duty Act? '2. Smt. Lakshmi Bai passed away on October 19, 1966. The accounts for purposes of estate duty were rendered by the accountable person, Shri Gowrishankar Damani, on June 15, 1967, in E.D. 1-A Form duly verified and sworn in. The principal value admitted was net movables of Rs. 77,393 only. During the course of scrutiny of income-tax records of the deceased, it was noticed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty that the deceased was in receipt of an allowance every year from the accountable person and that the same had been made a charge on a property. On further e...
Annamalai Gounder Vs. Chinnathambi Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ385
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The fifth defendant is the appellant. The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale executed by one Ayyakannu Gounder and defendants 1 and 2, who are the sons of Ayyakannu Gounder The contract of sale is dated 23rd April, 1970, under which Ayyakannu and his two sons agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,500 and received a sum of Rs. 2,500 as an advance. The balance of Rs. 2,000 was agreed to be paid within a period of one year. The plaintiff further stated that in pursuance of the agreement of sale the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and that he was in possession on the date of the suit and had raised groundnut crops thereon. The suit itself was filed on 18th December, 1970. Since by that time Ayyakannu had died, the suit was originally filed against defendants 1 to 4, who are the sons, daughter and wife of the said Ayyakanou. The plaintiff had made the usual averments in the plaint tha...
A. K. D. Dharmaraja Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR72(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, 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 law in holding that in evaluating the share of the deceased in the firm of Indian Reinforcing Company an adjustment on account of the value of the goodwill of the business of the firm was justified.2. Whether there was material on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that at the time of the death of the deceased the business of the firm of Indian Reinforcing Company had a goodwill and if so, whether the basis for valuation of the goodwill approved by the Tribunal is proper ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that in evaluating the share of the deceased in the firm of Indian Reinforcing Company an adjustment referable to the amount outstand...
Essorde Industrial Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR298(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference made 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that a penalty is imposable under Section 271(1)(a) on the assessee in whose case the assessment has been made as an unregistered firm making the provisions of Section 183(b) applicable '2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership executed on May 10, 1960. It closed its accounts for the first time on June 30, 1961. For the assessment year 1962-63, the return of income was due by June 30, 1962. It was, however, filed only on February 28, 1964. The firm applied for registration for the purposes of assessment to income-tax for 1962-63. However, the firm was not registered. In making the assessment on the firm on February 19, 1966, the Income-tax Officer determined th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Abdul Khader Motor and Lorry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR360(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there can be no assessment of any excess under the provisions of section 41(2) and of capital gains ?'The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, namely, Abdullah Rowther, the father, and Mohamed Abdul Khader, the son. The firm was constituted under a partnership deed dated September 28, 1950. The firm was carrying on the business of motor transport, plying buses and lorries. The vehicle together with their route permits stood in the name of Abdullah Rowther, the father. The total cost of the buses in the accounts of the firm as on March 31, 1962, was Rs. 2,17,821. The liabilities of the firm as on that date came to Rs. 4,21,337. Because of financial difficulties, the firm felt that it was advantageous to enter into a partnership with two o...
A.V. Rajadurai Nadar Vs. P. Ayya Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad237; (1977)1MLJ194
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Maharajan, J., who allowed the first respondent's appeal from an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Both he and the appellant have been engaged in the manufacture of matches, the former from 1945 at Sivakasi and the latter from 1959 at Sattur. The trade mark of the first respondent, camel brand, was registered on April 4, 1945, and his annual sales for 1946-47 were stated to be in the order of more than five lakhs, which rose to somewhere about thirty lakhs in 1966-67, while the appellant's turnover was very much less, in the order of about six lakhs. when the appellant's turnover was very much less, in the order of about six lakhs. When the appellant asked for registration of his trade mark, which consists of a ram as the permanent feature, it was objected to by the first respondent, but unsuccessfully. So the first respondent applied for rectification of the register in respect of the appellant's trade mark, which was not all...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »