Chennai Court February 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.
M.R. Pratap Vs. V.M. Muthukrishnan, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR655(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandyan, J.1. The first accused in C,C. No. 4445 of 1973 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, has preferred this revision petition against the order of the said Magistrate in Crl. M.P. No. 481-A/73 dated November 28, 1973, praying that the said order may be set aside. The petitioner-accused has also filed another petition in Crl. M.P. No. 4813 of 1976 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 4445 of 1973.2. The petitioner-accused had filed a petition under Section 432 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, raising certain preliminary objections and praying for the dismissal of the complaint on legal grounds or, in the alternative, to refer the questions raised in the said petition for decision by the High Court. The learned Magistrate, after fully hearing the counsel for the respective parties, dismissed the petition by overruling all the objections raised and holding that the complaint should be proceeded i...
T.i. Cycles of India Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT692(Mad)
Mohan, J. 1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is the manufacturer of cycles at its factory at Ambattur. It clears and supplies cycles in fully assembled condition from the factory to dealers in Madras and nearby places, while for the dealers in other places the factory clears and supplies cycles in completely knocked down condition (hereinafter referred to as CKD condition) i.e. instead of assembing the cycles in the factory itself, the manufacturer clears and supplies to dealers, all parts of the cycle and the actual assembly of the cycle is done at the destination by the dealers.2. Prior to the introduction of the Finance Bill of 1975, under Item 35 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), only two parts of the cycle, viz, (i) free wheels and (ii) rims were liable to excise duty. However, the effective rate of duty on these parts was 'nil' in view of the exemption notification issued by...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Jakthi Veliyeetakam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC466(Mad)
ORDERIsmail, J.1. In this case, the assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 2,201 under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. On an appeal preferred by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of penalty. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the determination of the turnover itself. In that appeal, the State filed a petition to restore the penalty levied by the assessing officer and cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal refused to restore the penalty. It is this order of the Tribunal concerning the penalty that is sought to be revised in this tax revision case filed under Section 38 of the Act.2. We are of the opinion that the so-called petition filed by the revenue for restoration of the penalty was not competent and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to restore the penalty. It is Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Act, which deals with the scope of orders, whic...
Karuppanna Gounder and ors. Vs. Chennimalai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1977
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ491
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The aggrieved plaintiff who is not satisfied with the order passed by the learned District Judge, East Coimbatore, on the question of adequacy of Court-fee paid, is the petitioner.2. It is common ground that the petitioner secured a decree for possession and for mesne profits, past and future. The future mesne profits were ascertained by the trial Court in an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. As a result of such an enquiry into mesne profits, the ultimate decree was passed. But while passing the decree, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff was not entitled to the rate of mesne profits as claimed, but to a lesser amount. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge passed the following order; 'Court-fee is to be paid on the difference at the rate of Rs. 1,700 from the date of suit till the date of appeal. Returned. Time, 3 weeks.'3. Mr. Mani challenges this order on the following ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Syam Steel Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC156(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the State under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, dated 7th May, 1975. The facts lie within a very narrow compass. The assessee, whose factory is in Bangalore, purchased in Tamil Nadu State M.S. rounds of the weight of 468.199 metric tonnes and transported them to Bangalore from Tiruchirapalli. It subsequently sold within the Tamil Nadu State M.S. rounds, M.S. angles and M.S. squares of the weight of 260.331 metric tonnes. It claimed that in respect of sales of M.S. rounds, M.S. angles and M.S. squares of the said weight no tax was payable, since the M.S. rounds which it purchased in Tamil Nadu had already suffered tax and the goods were liable only to a single point taxation. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority held that the assessee had not proved that the goods of the...
G. Subramania Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Ideal Finance Corporation, Par ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad358
ORDER1. This case raises an important question of Civil Procedure. The question is: Whether a judgment-debtor has a right to be heard in objection to an application filed by a decree-holder for leave to bid and set off in a sale of the judgment debtor's property in execution of the decree. The executing court in this case passed an order in the decree-holder's favour granting him leave to bid and set off. The order was made ex parte. The judgment-debtors have brought this appeal against that order.2. A preliminary objection was raised before me by Mr. P. Venkataswami, learned counsel for the respondent. He said that the judgment-debtor's appeal is not maintainable. According to him, no appeal lies under O. 43, C.P.C. against an order granting leave to bid and set off.3. I think the objection is well taken. Order 43, C.P.C., does not provide for an appeal against an order either granting or refusing to grant to the decree holder leave to bid and set of in an execution sale, although it ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Craigmore Land and Produce C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR889(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, referred the following question 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 replanting, building and machinery reserve, tax contingency reserve and pension reserve are includible in the computation of capital under Rule 1 of Sch. II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.' 2. The assessee is a non-resident foreign company incorporated in U.K. and engaged in the manufacture of tea from the estates owned by it in India. It filed a return under the above Act for the assessment-year 1964-65 admitting a net chargeable profit of Rs. 21,144. In the computation of capital under Rule 1 of Sch. II of the said Act, the assessee treated (1) replanting, building and machinery reserve, (2) tax contingency reserve and (3) pension ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR281(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, had referred the following question for the opinion of this court in T.C. No. 376 of 1974:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the special reinforced foundation constructed at a cost of Rs. 2,68,584 constitutes an item of plant and machinery and not a building and the depreciation and the development rebate should be allowed thereon on such basis '2. The question referred to in T.C. No. 423 of 1974 runs as follows:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the special reinforced foundation constructed at a cost of Rs. 8,21,617 would constitute an item of plant and machinery and, therefore, would be entitled to depreciation and development rebate '3. The assessments to which these two references relate were made for the assessment y...
S. Rajagopala Naicker Vs. the Government of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC228(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 41 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In this case, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Pondicherry, determined the taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 31,025 for the assessment year 1969-70 by his order dated 28th January, 1971. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Pondicherry and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 7th July, 1971, reduced the turnover to Rs. 18,300. On 9th November, 1971, the Government of Pondicherry issued a notice to the assessee under Section 37 of the Act proposing to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the assessing authority and to enhance the turnover. The assessee sent a reply and thereafter the (1) [1977J 39 S.T.C. 246. Government passed an order on 6th December, 1971, by setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commi...
R.P. Ganesan and ors. Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ280
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in L.A.C. No. 103 of 1962. Briefly, we can state the necessary facts relevant for consideration: On 15th September, 1954 a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (here in after called the Act), was made to compulsorily acquire 28-88 acres of land belonging to the appellants and comprised in S. No. 1|1 of Ayanavaram for the purpose of constructing quarters for the staff attached to the Integral Coach Factory. The appellants-Devasthanam were at all material times represented by the trustees appointed by competent authorities and the body of trustees,who were then functioning, on receipt of the notice of enquiry into the subject from the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, preferred their objections and in particular made a claim requesting the grant of a compensation at the rate of Rs. 250 per ground. Thereafter, apparently no app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »