Chennai Court November 1977 Judgments
Binny Ltd., Madras Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad302
Ramaprasada Rao J.1. The aggrieved claimant in I. A. C. No. 35 of 1972, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant An extent of 19 grounds 683 sq. ft. which roughly forms about 1/19th of the total extent owned by the appellant-claimant was the subject-matter of compulsory acquisition pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6-11-1988. The property is situate in Purasawalkam comprised in R. S. 2201/10. The public purpose for which the property was acquired was for the Corporation school and playground. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon Exs. B-2 and B-3 which were sales of plots of land to the south west ofthe acquired land. Under Exs. B-2 and B-3 properties were sold at the rate of Rs. 5500 per ground. The Land Acquisition Officer bearing in mind the locality in which the acquired property is situate increased the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 6000 per ground as just compensation payable to the appellant. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!D. Thomas Vs. Tara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad415
1. The husband went to court seeking for a divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground that the defendant was unfaithful to him from December 1972 and that she was guilty of adultery. In the pleadings, the plaintiff as husband has set out in the various paragraphs the illegal conduct of the defendant and her illicit connections with the various named persons. In fact, he would allege that he had to leave the residence along with his children to his uncle's house unable to bear the misconduct of the defendant. He so separated himself from her on 13-1-1973. He says that the defendant is living the life of a prostitute and would add that she is living as the mistress of one Murali. In general, the case of the plaintiff-husband is that the defendant was leading an adulterous life with men known and unkonwn. He did not, however, make the adulterers as parties to this suit. The defendant's case was that she led such a life because of her husband himself and that on many ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. N. S. S. Ganapathia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)184
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. - The questions that arise for consideration in these Tax Cases under the Gift Tax Act, 12958 relate to the assessment for the year 1965-66 and the question framed in the two cases and referred to us for our opinion read as follows :-T.C. No. 186 of 1974 :'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 in respect of that part of his right to share in the profits of the firm as a partner, which he had surrendered in favour of his sons' ?T.C. No. 196/1974 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was not liable to pay gifts tax in respect of that part of his right to share in the profits of the firms as a partner which he had surrendered in favour of his sons' ?These tax cases relate to the two partners in a firm which was reconstituted on 1-4-1964. The two partners are N.S.S. Ganapathi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Saraswathi Ammal and ors. and J.H. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: [1981]127ITR404(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These are references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, of the two questions arising in relation to the assessment of the legal representative of one Loganatha Mudaliar and Tarapore, both partners of a firm called M/s. Tarapore & Co. The questions read as follows : T.C. No. 343 of 1974 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee was entitled to rebate on the share of dividend received from the firm, M/s. Tarapore & Co., when the relief by way of rebate had already been granted to the firm under Section 85 ' T.C. No. 385 of 1974 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it had been rightly held that the assessee was entitled to rebate on the share ofdividend received from the firm, M/s. Tarapore & Co., when the relief by way of rebate had already been granted to the firm under Section 85 '2. The firm, of which the said Loganatha Mudaliar and Tarapore were partne...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R. Raghupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: [1983]139ITR476(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred to us for our opinion in regard to the assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 of the HUF reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid by the assessee on the moneys set apart by him on the partial partition of the family for the maintenance of his wife and maintenance and marriage expenses of his minor daughters and utilised for his business, is an allowable deduction under Sections 36(iii) and 37(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The HUF, that was assessed, came into existence as a result of a partial partition effected in the family on January 21, 1967. The question referred depends for its answer on the interpretation of the earlier part of the partition deed. It is better to extract that part in the original language in which it has been written.3. The relevant part of the above portion would mean that the wife of the kar...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Silasri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran and Another V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR889(Mad)
W.P. Nos. 2960/75, 1581/76 1948/76 and 1972/76MOHAN J. - All these writ petitions raise a common question of law as to the scope of section 4(b) introduced in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (V of 1955). The said section 4(b) came to be introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act No. 4 of 1973 with effect from April 1, 1972.Suffice it for me to note the facts of W.P. No. 2960 of 1975. The petitioner had been assessed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an extent of 124.50 acres equivalent to 72.37 a composition basis. The petitioner had settled an extent of 50.46 ordinary acres in the name of a private trust called Nagakulam Bungalow Krishna Pooja Trust on May 14, 1955. Since the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was of the view that this trust cannot be a public or religious or charitable trust and as it would attract section 4(b) of the Act, the extent was clubbed in the holdings of the petitioner from 1973-74 for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Subramaniam Vs. Drivers and Conductors Bus Service Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas672(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a director of the respondent-company known as Drivers and Conductors Bus Service Private Ltd., which is having its registered office at No. 156, Brough Road, Erode, Coimbatore District. The complaint of the petitioner as it appears from the petition can be summarised thus : (a) Since the incorporation of the company, the company has not declared any dividend. The petitioner did not receive any dividend nor did he derive any other benefits in the company as a director, whereas it is said that the other two directors, one of whom has been designated as the managingdirector, have been unauthorisedly using the company's fund for their personal benefit. (b) The petitioner had been kept in darkness relating to the affairs of the company by the other two directors. (c) The other directors have withdrawn large sums of money in collusion with the financier, Sri Senniappa Gounder, Erode. (d) Though a notice of a general meeting was called for on Januar...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Motor and General Ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR354(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for our opinion, in relation to assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68, at the instance of the revenue, reads as follows: 'Whether it has been rightly held that the cost of assets which had produced any income alone and not the cost of assets which had not produced any income should be considered as falling under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The question arises in these circumstances :3. During the three years mentioned above, in computing the capital assets of the company in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule for determining the 'statutory deduction', which term is defined in Section 2(8) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964'(hereinafter referred to as the Act), the income-tax authorities had taken the value of the assets which is capable of giving rise to income mentioned under Clause (viii) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanmal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ867
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. This Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ and direct the production of the body of D. Gaverchand before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Madras, by virtue of the order of detention passed by the first respondent in GO Ms No. S/1 863/1/75 Public S. C. Department dated 7-5-1975, and for directing the said detenu to be set at liberty forthwith. The case of the petitioner is that the detenu is his brother, who was having a textile business at No. 4/13 Kasi Chetti St, Madras under the name and style of Ambika Fancy Stores. In April 1974, the detenu went to his native place in Rajasthan and thereby he incurred loss in his business also. On 23-6-1977, the detenu was arrested at Rajasthan and was brought to Madras on 6-7-1977 and detained in the Central Prison, Madras. He was served with a detention order on 7-7-1977 and the grounds of detention were served on him on 8-7-1977...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Prema Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR78(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question arises under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and the point is whether the valuation fixed by the Tribunal for certain shares that have been gifted by the assessee on March 28, 1968, and held by the assessee in M/s. Southern Roadways (P.) Ltd. has been rightly fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 104.30 per share. 2. The assessee had filed a return showing the value of shares as on the date of gift at Rs. 139 per share. She had gifted 1,000 shares. She, therefore, valued the gift at Rs. 1,39,000. However, she got wise and on October 28, 1968, filed a revised return showing the value of shares at Rs. 104.30 per share. The reduction of the value per share was sought to be supported on the basis that there had been issue of bonus shares by the company and that the company had also paid dividend out of the general reserves of the company and if the value of the bonus shares as well as the amount that had been withdrawn for the purpose of dividend are taken into account...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »