Chennai Court November 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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rajah Sir M. A. Muthiah C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR731(Mad)
P. GOVINDAN NAIR C.J. - The short question arising for decision in this tax case for the years of assessment 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 is whether the interest payable from September 28, 1964, to September 22, 1965, on the amount of tax that had to be refunded as a result of the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the year of assessment 1956-57 and the interest payable on the tax amount refundable as a result of the appellate decision for the years of assessment 1957-58 and 1958-59 for the period from September 28, 1964, to October 6, 1965, should be at 6 per cent. per annum. The question arose because section 244 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was amended by the Finance Act of 1965 by raising the rate of interest from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent.The submission on behalf of the revenue at whose instance the question has been referred to this court was that since the law has been charged only from April 1, 1965, the interest at the enhanced rate will be payable only from ...
C.V. Ramaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. C.S. Shyamala Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ505
Paul, J.1. O.S.A. No. 81 of 1975 is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge on the Original Side of this Court in C.S. No. 16 of 1972. A.S. No. 615 of 1973 and A.S. No.216 of 1971 are appeals filed against the judgment and decree of the learned III Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court in O.S. Nos. 2771 and 2960 of 1967. These two appeals have been transferred to the file of this Court to be heard along with O.S.A. No. 81 of 1975.2. All the three appeals are by C.V. Ramaswamy Naidu who is the first defendant in O.S. No. 16 of 1972 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2771 of 1967 and 2960 of 1967. C.S. No. 16 of 1972 was filed by C.V. Srinivasan, the brother of the appellant in all these appeals for partition and separate possession of his half share in the immovable properties described in the plaint A Schedule and the movables set out in the plaint B Schedule and for a decree directing the first defendant to pay to the pl...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. S. Venu Srinivasan and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR771(Mad)
GOVINDAN NAIR C.J. - We deal with these two cases under a common judgment because the questions that have been referred to us by the Tribunal in these cases raise similar if not identical questions for decision. We shall extract the questions in the two cases :T.C.No. 588 of 1975'Whether it has been rightly held that shares of M/s T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. should be value for gift-tax assessment at Rs. 107.34 per share and not as at Rs. 134.82 per share ?'T.C.No. 595 of 1975'Whether, it has been rightly held that shares of M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (P.) Ltd. Should be valued for gift-tax assessment at Rs. 107.58 per share and not as at Rs. 133.63 per share ?'The year of assessment in T.C.No. 588 of 1975 is 1971-72 and that in T.C. No. 595 of 1975 is 1973-74. Two gift deeds are the subject-matter which gave rise to these references, one dated March 22, 1971, in the earlier case and the other dated March 28, 1973, in T.C.No. 595 of 1975. These gifts dealt with shar...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhai Maligai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR737(Mad)
Varadarajan, 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 Income-tax Act, 1961. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court is this: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 18,529 is qualified for being considered for purposes of deduction under Section 80G{2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The claim of the assessee, Messrs. Abhai Maligai, Tiruchirapalli, in the return for the assessment year 1969-70 for deduction or rebate of Rs. 18,529 being fifty per cent. of the amount said to have been spent for constructing a museum building in the Southern Prakaram of Sri Ranganathaswami Temple at Srirangam and electrification thereof, made under Section 80G(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was disallowed on the ground that there is no cash donation to the temple. The Income-tax Officer treated the amount as inc...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. Chettinad Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR898(Mad)
VARADARAJAN J. - This tax case arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 256(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue. The question referred for the opinion of this court is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the surplus realised by the assessee in remitting the monies to India from it Ceylon branch due to devaluation of Indian currency was capital receipt but not revenue profit for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 ?'The Income-tax Officer declined to accept the claim of the respondent-assessee put forward in its return that the sum of Rs. 1,10,909 relating to the assessment year 1967-68, and the sum of Rs. 3,79,185 relating to the assessment year 1968-69 were capital receipts and not business profits and he included that amount in the total income of the assessee for assessment. The assessee was carrying on business in Ceylon where it had a ...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR534(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. With reference to the years of assessment 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, the following questions respectively have been referred to this court for its opinion:Assessment Year 1965-66: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sums of Rs. 91,510, Rs. 2,40,197, Rs. 19,03,252, Rs. 24,36,239 and Rs. 6,42,524 representing the premium deposits, unearned premium, provision for outstanding claims, provision for taxation and proposed dividends respectively did not all under Rule 2(i) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964? Assessment Year 1966-67: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it hasbeen rightly held that the sums of Rs. 3,34,756, Rs. 1,70,463, Rs. 41,36,469,Rs. 17,21,932, Rs. 8,00,000 and Rs. 82,333 representing the premium deposits, unearned premium, provision for outstanding claims, provision fortaxation, proposed dividends and balance in the profit and loss ac...
The Secretary to Government Home Department and anr. Vs. T.V. Hari Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad42
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal by the State Government and the Director of School Education (the defendants in the suit) arises out of a suit for declaration that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 14-2-15)23 and for a direction for entry of the said date in the service register. T. V. Hari Rao, the plaintiff in the suit was a Government servant. His date of birth as entered in the service register is 15-5-1921. That is in accordance with his date of birth entered in the S. S. L. C. book which he declared to be correct when he entered service. As per that date the plaintiff was due to retire by 14-5-1976. A few months prior to the retirement or superannuation, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and direction as mentioned earlier. According to him, 4us real date of birth is 14-2-1923, that the date had been wrongly given as 15-5-1921 in the S. S. L. C. book and that the same mistake had been carried over when he entered service. He said that some time prior to the ...
Dr. M.R.S. Vas Vs. the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad126
1. This writ petition is by the owner of 'Ramakrishna Talkies' situate in Tennur High Boad, Tiruchirapalli, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction calling for the records relating to the orders of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Prohibition and Excise, Board of Revenue, Madras, the first respondent herein, and quash the same. The writ miscellaneous petitions are to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd respondent as respondents 4 to 7 and to appoint the 4th respondent as the guardian of the minor respondents 5 to 7 and for an injunction restraining the second respondent from further renewing the licence in the name of the 3rd respondent's legal representatives or any other person and to substitute respondents 4 to 7 in the place of the 3rd respondent, respectively.2. The first respondent's order BP. Rt. 3229/76-L dated 19-7-1976 was passed on the appeal filed by Krishnamurthi, the third respondent (now deceased) the t...
Chikkaraj Vs. K.N. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Mad103
1. These Letters Patent appeal have been preferred against the judgment of N. S. Ramaswami J. in A. A. O. 177 of 1975 and 183 of 1975 respectively.2. The appeals before the learned Judge were filed by the decree-holder Viswanathan-A. A. O. 177 of 1975 against the order of the Subordinate Judge Coimbatore, allowing E. A. No. 1486 of 1974 which had been filed by the fourth defendant (the appellant in L. P. A. 39 of 1976) under Section 47 C. P. C. against the attachment of a portion of the house property in execution of a decree as an asset of his father Kunne Gounder in his hands, and A. A. O. No. 183 of 1975 against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing E. P. 304 of 1972 in which the respondent had attached certain shares in Lakshmi Mills as an asset of Kunne Gounder in the hands of defendants 7 to 9, the daughters of Kunne Gounder and the appellants, in L. P. A. 40 of 1976.3. Kunne Gounder, that father of the appellants, who died on 27-8-1967, appears to have been...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Late Kumararaja M. A. Muthia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)203
Varadarajan, J. - This tax case arises out of a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under S. 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law, in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,06,591/- received by the assessee from the Liquidator of the Bank of Chettinad, Limited, in the form of shares in Ms. Chettinad Company Private Ltd., in the year of account 1966-67 cannot be included in the chargeable income of the assessee under the head Capital gains ?The assessee, the late M.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar now represented by his legal representatives, was a shareholder in the Bank of Chettinad Ltd., which held certain shares in the Chettinad Company Private Ltd., and which went into liquidation on 21-9-1965. Some of those shares were allotted to the assessee in the liquidation proceedings. Some m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »