Chennai Court October 1977 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.N. Shanmuga Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR178(Mad)
Varadarajan, J. 1. These tax cases arise out of references made at the instance of the revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench--T.C. No. 189 of 1973 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and T.C. No. 113 of 1974 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. The assessee in both the cases is one K.N. Shanmuga Sundaram. The assessment years in both the cases are 1965-66 to 1968-69. The assessee had gifted premises bearing door Nos. 8, 9 and 12, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Madras, to his three minor daughters, Padmalochani, Hamsa and Usha, respectively, by three separate documents. The recital in the gift deeds is that the gifts have been made on account of the affection which the assessee has for his minor daughters and also the duty which the assessee and his minor son owed to maintain the donees in future in conformity with their family status and dignity and also to give the minor daughters necessary marriage presents and streedhanam at the time of...
Rajanarayanaperumal Temple, by Its Executive Officer Vs. Rethinam Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1977
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ159
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The main question in this Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff is whether the plaintiff's title had been extinguished by the law of limitation. The plaintiff is the Sri Rajanarayanaperumal Temple, Melayur represented by its trustee and Executive Officer. The suit is for recovery of possession with future profits of an agricultural land whose extent is 96 cents comprised in R.S. No. 169/6, Melayur, Sirkali taluk. It is not in dispute that the suit property belonged to the temple, the same having been granted as an iruwaram inam.2. One Manikkam Pillai was formerly the trustee of the temple. In the year 1941, he purported to exchange the suit property with another property of one Muthiah Pillai. The other property is said to be comprised in two survey numbers whose total extent is 92 cents. The exchange was under the original of Exhibit A-4, dated 2nd December, 1941. Within two days thereafter, that is under the original of Exhibit A-5 dated 4th December, 1941, the su...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. W.A. Beardsell and Co. (P.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1977
Reported in: [1981]130ITR159(Mad)
Varadarajak, J. 1. This tax case arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue.2. The asssesees in this case are M/s. W.A. Beardsell & Co. (P.) Ltd., Madras, represented by their successors, Mettur Industries Ltd., Madras. The year of assessment is 1968-69. M/s. W.A. Beardsell & Co. Were the managing agents of M/s. Mettur Industries Ltd. Since the latter's incorporation in 1936. The managing agents were handling the sales of Mettur Industries, as their sole distributors. In view of the manufacturing experience of M/s. Mettur Industries Ltd., and the managerial experience of M/s. Beardsell & Co. In sales and distribution, an amalgamation of both the companies was considered to be advantageous to both of them. Therefore, instead of renewing the managing agency agreement, both the companies filed an application before the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act for app...
Valliammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Palaniswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ463
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 47 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Udumalpet is the appellant. There was one Semalai Gounder, who had two wives. He had two daughters Muthammal and Palani Ammal through his first wife. He had three issues by this second wife viz., two daughters Valliammal, the plaintiff and Ramathal and a son Palani Goundar. On the death of Semalai Gounder, Palani Gounder became entitled to his properties. Palani died in the year 1943. He had no issues and left behind only his widow Deivayanai Ammal alias Devathal. This Devathal fell ill sometime in October, 1969. One Dr. Sankunni practising in Pollachi paid one or two visits to her house to treat her. Subsequently as advised by him she entered his hospital at Pollachi on 24th October, 1969. At that time she appeared to have complained of pain in the abdomen and the chest region. It is not clear whether any test was conducted. But she was discharged on 1st November, 1969, without being cure...
T.S. Radhakrishnan Vs. the State Bank of India, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad163
1. This appeal by the defendant in C. S. No. 68 of 1967 on the Original Side of this court is directed against the order of Mohan J. in Diary No. 11511 of 1974 dated 14-2-1975 directing the inclusion of Rs. 100 and Rs. 150 said to have been paid by the appellant on 11 -4-1967 and 26-4-1967 respectively, Rs. 850 paid to the receiver for his remuneration and Rs. 5017-30 paid to the receiver for his expenses as per order dated 11-4-1967 in Appn. No. 849 of 1967 in the costs awarded to the respondent (plaintiff) in the decree in the said CS No. 68 of 1967.2. The judgment dated 7-7-1971 of N.S. Ramaswami J. declares the respondent to be entitled to costs from the appellant. In accordance with Order XVIII Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules, clause 3 of the decree declares that the respondent is entitled to costs of suit when taxed and noted in the margin of the decree. One of the prayers in the suit was for appointment of a receiver to take charge of the properties described in schedule I to ...
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram Vs. A.N. Damodara Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad201; (1978)1MLJ267
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in O. P. Nos. 42 of 1968 and 43 of 1968 on his file. A. S. 367 of 1973 is by the State Government against the decision of the Court below in O. P. 42 of 1968. A. S, 603 of 1973 is against such a decision in O. P. 43 of 1968. The lands in O. P. 42 of 1968 are owned by a temple called Patalleswarar Devastanam, The lands which are the subject-matter of O. P. 43 of 1968, are owned by a private party, The Land Acquisition Officer, after the promulgation of the notice under Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act on 27-12-1961, issued notices to the claimants as above which are marked as Exs. B-2 and B-5. Both the notices are dated 24-4-1965. There is some controversy on the question as to whether the date of the notice should be taken as the date of service of such notice on the claimants. The case of the State is that the date of the notice should primarily be taken into considera...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prabhat Bakery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1977
Reported in: [1979]118ITR35(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question relating to the year of assessment 1967-68 for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,300 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessee had first filed a return showing an income of Rs. 20,899 on the turnover of Rs. 5,19,616. This works out to 12.6 per cent. of thegross profit as seen from the books of account. The assessing authorities felt that both the turnover as well as the percentage of profit were too low. The turnover was, therefore, fixed at Rs. 6,79,364 and the percentage of profits was fixed at 18 per cent, with the result, the income-tax to be assessed was determined as on the income of Rs. 66,460. The tax was imposed on that figure. The assessment order has been accepted by the assessee, no appeal havi...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late Abdul Kader Mohamedally
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR511(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. All these references arise from the proceedings of the Tribunal in dealing with the question of fixation of the duty payable on the estate of deceased, Abdul Khader, who passed away on March II, 1964. Sub-section (6) of Section 63 was put into operation, and as there was dispute regarding the value of the property, an objection was raised by the appellant and the question was referred to two valuers, one nominated by the appellant and the other by the respondent. It appears that they acted each on his own and filed separate reports regarding the value of the property; the valuer nominated by the revenue on March 15, 1970, fixing the value at Rs. 16,84,000 and the respondent's nominee on January 7, 1970, fixing the value at Rs. 14,12,700. It was pointed out to the valuers that they should act jointly, inspect the properties jointly and then give their opinion. The valuers thereafter acted in unison, inspected the properties and filed their report on October 6, 197...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. R.R. Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR70(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this court for our opinion in relation to the assessment years 1967-68,1968-69 and 1969-70 reads as follows ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the insurance premia paid by the assessee could not constitute gift ?'2. The assessee had taken two policies of insurance on his life, one for a lakh of rupees and the other for Rs. 25,000. The amounts paid by way of insurance premia during the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and1969-70, respectively, were Rs. 12,102, Rs. 7,287 and Rs. 7,287. In deciding the amount on which gift-tax should be imposed for the three years, the assessing authority reached the figures of Rs. 20,246, Rs. 15,431 and Rs. 10,431 for the three years by including in each of those years the insurance premia paid by the assessee which we mentioned earlier. Though the assessee contested this inclusion before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Shaw Wallace and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1977
Reported in: [1979]43STC48(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These two tax revisions taken by the revenue deal with the sales tax assessments respectively for the years 1970-71 and 1969-70 on the same assessee. We shall give below a tabulated statement in respect of the assessments in both the cases :T.C. No. 481/74 T.C. No. 473/741969-70 1970-71Rs. P. Rs. P.Turnover disputed before theAppellate Assistant Commissioner 2,25,99,033.32 1,00,74,833.98Relief granted by the AppellateAssistant Commissioner 1,20,18,842.80 42,38,182.90The disputed turnover which had to be dealt with by theAppellate Tribunal 11,67,737.79 1,97,912.56The enhancement sought bythe department 1,20,18,842.80 42,38,182.90Relief granted by the Trib-unal by its order dated 21st February, 1974 7,64,218.52 3,40,694.862. The points taken before us in regard to these two tax revision cases, which are common to these cases are: (i) that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in allowing the assessee to urge for the first time before it that the sales tax...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »