Chennai Court March 1977 Judgments
The Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Vs. the State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC212(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the assessee, a co-operative society and they relate to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessee was assessed for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 12,49,628.96 and Rs. 24,26,609.87 respectively. Out of the said turnover the assessee disputed a turnover of Rs. 12,06,990.35 for the year 1959-60 and a turnover of Rs. 24,08,705.83 for the year 1960-61. For the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 31,31,177.88 as against Rs. 24,85,999.25 reported by the assessee. In that year, there was a disputed turnover of Rs. 6,43,194.33. The main contention raised by the assessee-society against the above assessments to tax was that, in respect of the sales covering the turnovers in dispute for all the three years, the society merely acted as an intermediary, bringing together the agriculturist-principals and the respective purchasers in auct...
Tag this Judgment!S. Misirilal Vs. the Accommodation Controller
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ52
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. In the year 1972, the petitioner made an application to the Accommodation Controller Madras, under Section 12(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I960 (here in after referred to as the Act) praying for the release of a building bearing No. 5 and situated in Kollamman Koil Street, Madras. That application was rejected through an order dated the 18th of December, 1972 passed by the Accommodation Controller on the ground that a similar application had been rejected by his predecessor in office on the 19th of March, 19/2 for the reason that the building was in a good condition. It is the said order dated the 18th of December 1972 by which the petitioner feels aggrieved and in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India he prays that the Accommodation Controller be directed by a writ of mandamus to release the building under the said section of the Act.2. The relevant portion of Section 12 of the Act is reproduced below :12...
Tag this Judgment!R. Parthasarathy Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: [1980]124ITR844(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. One Ramabadra Iyer died on October 14, 1962, and the proceedings relate to the assessment to estate duty of his dutiable estate. He and his paternal cousin, Kasivisvanatha Iyer, originally constituted an HUF. There was a partition as between them on April 5, 1959. After such partition, the HUF of which the deceased was the karta, consisted of himself, his wife, Parasakthi Ammal, and his minor son, R. Parthasarathy. The deceased had two daughters, Rama Devi Ammal and Naga-veni Ammal, both of whom were married. On July 25, 1959, the deceased executed a registered settlement deed by and under which he settled upon his wife, Parasakthi Ammal, and his two married daughters referred to above, lands set out in the Schedules ' A', ' B' and 'C', respectively, thereto to be taken by them absolutely. The schedules give various items of immovable properties and the value of the properties mentioned in each schedule is given as Rs. 10,000. Pattas for these lands were also got transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsanam Alias Ramakrishna Naidu Vs. the Tiruvannamalai Municipal Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ138
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 792 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, who lost before the Court's below is the appellant herein. He instituted the suit for a declaration that the levy of the profession tax by the Municipality was illegal and for an injunction against the Municipality from recovering the said tax, as his case was that for the half year ending 30th September, 1970 he was levied a profession tax of Rs. 4 only, but for the half year ending 31st March, 1971 and 30th September, 1971, he was levied a profession tax at Rs. 75/-assessing his income at Rs. 9,100 and this was done illegally, mala fide contrary to the provisions contained in the District Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the Municipality in its written statement denied the averments contained in the plaint that the plaintiff had sent a return as contemplated by the relevant rules f...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chettyappan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR684(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, a common question arises for myconsideration, viz., whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-taxhas jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of an item which is exempt fromtaxation even though that exemption was not claimed before the originalauthority.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1448 of 1974 is an assessee on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil, who filed the returns for the assessment year 1971-72, showing a net income of Rs. 85,261. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer accepted the net income return submitted by the petitioner and levied a tax of Rs. 30,581.60. Thereafter, he discovered that the life insurance premia paid by him amounting to Rs. 11,629.69 was exempt and, therefore, preferred a revision claiming exemption. The only ground on which the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax disallowed the claim was that in the return filed he had not made a claim towards rebate for life insurance premia paid by hi...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkataraman Vs. M.V. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad36
ORDERSuryamurthy, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of a Bench of the Small Cause Court, Madras, allowing the appeal against the judgment of a single Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. S. C. No. 1082 of 1972 was filed by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,260/-. The plaintiff claimed the same as arrears of rent. The plaintiff was in occupation of the building bearing No. 26 (No. 1) T. P. Koil St, Triplicane, Madras, as the tenant of Sri Parthasarathiswami temple, Triplicane, Madras. He permitted the defendant to use a portion of the property for two hours every day in the evening on the defendant agreeing to pay every month Rs. 35/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was only a licensee, who was permitted to use the premises during the said two hours every day on the aforesaid terms. Alleging that for the period from 1-11-1967 to 31-12-1971, the defendant did not pay and that a sum of Rs. 1,750/- was due, the suit was f...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Prasad Prasan Kumar JaIn Vs. the Tahsildar, Pondicherry and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad171
ORDERMohan, J.1. The writ petition is to prohibit the respondents, the Territory of Pondicherry represented by the Collector of Pondicherry, from enforcing the provisions of the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 as against the petitioner.2. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of Pawn Broking at Villiyanur Road, Nellitope, Pondicherry after obtaining a licence under the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 (Act 11 of 1966). The Collector of Pondicherry inspected the petitioner's shop on 9-5-1974 and checked some of the account books and also enquired one of the customers. After the said inspection the petitioner was issued with a notice on 10-5-1974, to show cause why action should not be taken against him for those irregularities. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Tahsildar, by an order dated 20-5-1974, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. K.P. Ponnusamy Gounder (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR30(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. During the four years, viz., assessment years 1964-65 to1967-68, which are the subject-matter of consideration in these revisionpetitions, the first respondent owned 38.33 acres of land in Mettupattivillage in different survey numbers. When action was taken to assess theagricultural income from the lands under the provisions of the Tamil NaduAgricultural Income-tax Act, one of the contentions put forward bythe first respondent was that even though he owned 38'33 acres of land, hecultivated an extent of less than 12.50 standard acres find, therefore, theAct itself did not apply to him. Though the Agricultural Income-tax Officeras well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept this contention of the first respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunalaccepted this contention and held that the Act has no application to thefirst respondent. It also alternatively held that even on the basis that theAct applied, the income derived by the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Muthalagirisami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR751(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. All these tax revision petitions preferred by the State against the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunalrelate to five assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68. In all these cases, the assessee filed voluntarily the returns of income on January 19, 1969. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer estimated the income and assessed the same to tax. The assessee put forward the contention that since the returns were filed by him after the expiry of the assessment years relevant to the previous years, no assessment could have been made without reference to Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent herein. Hence, the present tax revision petitions by the State.2. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. It is Section 16 which deals with filing of return of income. Sub-section (1) of that section sta...
Tag this Judgment!Viny Pap Sales Depot Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC317(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. In this revision petition preferred by the dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the PVC coated paper, which is the subject-matter of consideration, falls under entry 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Section 3(2) thereto so as to make the turnover of the sales of this item subject to single point tax. It is necessary for the purpose of deciding this question to extract the entire entry 117 of the First Schedule :117. Paper, all sorts (including paste-board, mill-board, straw board and cardboard),-(i) cigarette tissue ;(ii) blotting, toilet, target, tissue other than cigarette tissue, teleprinter, typewriting, manifold, bank, bond, art paper, chrome paper, tubsized paper, cheque paper, stamp paper, cartridge paper, parchment and coated board (including art board, chrome board and board for playing cards); (iii) printing and writing paper, pack...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »