Chennai Court January 1977 Judgments
Kottayan Asari and anr. Vs. Gopalan Alias Andi Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ310
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 393 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Melur, who lost before the Courts below, are the appellants herein. The suit items are two in number, which admittedly belonged to one Periakaruppan Asari, who died leaving behind his widow Chinnammal and mother Meenakshi. The said Meenakshi Ammal and Chinnamma executed an othi in respect of these items in favour of ore Alagayi Ammal under the original of Exhibit A-3 dated 10th November, 1937. Meenakshi Ammal died and the appellants herein are said to be the sons of Alagayi Ammal and therefore the successors-in-interest of the mortgagee Chinnammal under Exhibit A-1, dated 24th May, 1970 settled the first item of the suit property in favour of the second plaintiff. Under Exhibit A-2 dated 29th June, 1970 she sold the second item in favour of the first plaintiff. Both the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, joined together and instituted the present suit for redemption of the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Velu Pandar and ors. Vs. Prakasam Alias Padmini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ141
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 250 of 1973 and the respondents in I.A. No. 92 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 5th May, 1948 said to have been executed by her father in favour of one Pappammal is null and void and in the alternative for reconveyance of the property on payment of the sale price. She also claimed a decree for redemption on the basis that the said sale deed in favour of Pappammal was a mortgage by conditional sale. The Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs holding that the sale deed is true and valid, and that it is not a mortgage by conditional sale. On appeal in A.S. No. 428 of 1968, a Division Bench of this Court held that the said sale deed in favour of Pappammal was a mortgage by conditional sale and therefore passed a preliminary decree for redemption and permitted the plaintiff to depo it into Court a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Iyengar Vs. Sivaswami Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad364
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession. The suit property is described as R. S. 146/3 and 146/10, measuring 1 acre and 32 cents and 1 acre and 44 cents respectively with cocoanut trees, bamboo clusters, jack trees, neem trees and other trees. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, originally under a document Ex. A-1, dated 17-8-1957, the defendant was given the right to collect usufruct from the cocoanut trees standing upon the two survey numbers on payment of a sum of Rs. 400 and also 400 cocoanuts and 400 cocoanuts leaves, This right was conferred on the defendant only for a period of one year. Such right was given every year subsequently and the defendant executed similar documents under Exs. A-2 to A-8 each for a period of one year upto the year ending 17-8-1967. For the period subsequent to 17-8-1967, there was no document in writing. But it is admitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Nachimuthu Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR256(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. Against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharapuram, dated 30th August, 1975, levying agricultural income-tax, the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said officer by his impugned order dated 24th March, 1976, dismissed the revision petition. It is against the said order that the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition, purporting to be under Section 54 of the Act. We are of the opinion that this revision petition is not maintainable. Section 54(1) of the Act, as far as it is relevant, states that the assessee in the case of an order under Section 34 enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to him may prefer an application to the High Court against the order on the ground that the Commissioner has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. In ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vaidyasubramaniam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1977
Reported in: [1977]108ITR538(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The assessees wife acquired a plot of land in 1955 out of the amounts given by the assessee and on the said land, a house was constructed by utilising a sum of Rs. 90,000 gifted by the assessee to her after 1956. The construction of the house was completed in 1957. The assessee and his wife have been residing in the said house ever since. For the assessment years in reference, namely, 1965-66 to 1968-69, the Wealth-tax Officer included Rs. 1,60,000 on account of this property presumably under section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee contested this inclusion in appeal. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that the Wealth-tax Officer ought to have included under section 4(1)(a)(i) only the value of the asset transferred after April 1, 1956, that is, Rs. 90,000, and not the entire value of the house to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000 and the Wealth-tax Officer erred in not allowing exemption for this asset under section 5(1)(iv) of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Kandaswami Weaving Factory an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR84(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. In Tax Case No. 389 of 1974, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, where an assessee which is a registered firm has paid the entire tax payable before the date of imposition of penalty, no penalty could be levied for the belated filing of the return despite the provisions of Section 271(2)?' 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (Central), Madras, at whose instance the above question was referred, filed T.C.P. No. 56 of 1975 on the file of this court and by an order dated October 27, 1975, this court directed the Tribunal to refer the following question also: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was leviable on the assessee as no tax was due from it on the date of imposition of penalty ?' 3. This question is covered by Tax Cas...
Tag this Judgment!M.O.A. Rahaman Sait and Another Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR226(Mad)
KOSHAL J. - By this judgment I shall dispose of four petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, Writ petitions No. 926, 927, 2578 and 2579 of 1972, in the first and last of which the petitioner is one M.O.A. Rahaman Sait while the other two have been filed by his brother, named, A.K.A. Rahaman Sait.The facts leading to the four petitions may be stated in some detail. Each of the two petitioners owns an arecanut garden situated at Kotagiri Road, Mettupalayam, in Coimbatore District. On the 15th of April, 1966, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore (hereafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Officer'), received from each petitioner an application requesting for composition of the agricultural income-tax due from him in respect of the assessment year 1966-67. The applications were accepted by the Income-tax Officer on the 15th of August, 1966, with the direction that the permission to compound thereby granted would enure also for the assessment years 1967-68...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.B. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR443(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The matter relates to assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee owned properties in Kodaikanal and Bangalore and both were admittedly occupied by the assessee for her own residence. The Income-tax Officer in his computation had not deducted the municipal tax paid by the assessee from the annual value for the purpose of arriving at the income from the property. However, on appeal preferred by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted her the necessary relief. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the department took up the matter in appeal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the municipal tax from the annual value for the computation of the income from the property. It is, thereafter, at the instance of the department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has referred the following ques...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.T. Oppilal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR126(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The assessee in this case was a shareholder of the Bank of Chettinad Ltd., which went into liquidation on January 29, 1965. She held 1,510 shares in the said company at the time when the company went into liquidation. As a first instalment, the liquidator of the company paid the assessee in March, 1965, Rs. 200 each in respect of her entire shareholdings of 1,510 shares, viz., Rs. 3,02,000. Deducting the sum of Rs. 1,56,000 being the original cost, the balance of Rs. 1,46,000 was offered for assessment as 'capital gains' in the previous year for 1965-66 assessment. Consequently, at the beginning of the year of account relevant for assessment year 1966-67 the cost price of Rs. 300 each for 50 shares was outstanding pending adjustment. During the year of account relevant to assessment year 1966-67, now under consideration, the liquidation proceedings were completed and the assessee was allotted 746 shares of Rs. 1,000 each in M/s. Chettinad Company Private Ltd., Pudukkottai...
Tag this Judgment!C. Gangadharan Vs. Alandur Municipality, Represented by Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ159
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in rice carrying on business within, the territorial limits of Alandur Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality), since the early sixties. In the year 1964, the municipality prescribed a fee of Rs. 30 per year for a licence to carry on business as a dealer in rice. The petitioner took out such a licence in that year and was obtaining one every year thereafter till 31st March, 1972. By a notification dated 27th November, 1971 however, the Municipality enhanced the fee for such a licence from Rs. 30 to Rs. 200 per year with effect from 1st April, 1972 and it is that notification by which the petitioner feels aggrieved and which he seeks to have quashed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through the issuance of a writ of certiorari.2. The sole ground on the basis of which the impugned notification was attacked in the petition was that the licence fee had to be commensurate with the services ren...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »