Chennai Court March 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.
K. Natarajan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR580(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. The short question that arises in these cases is whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was right in disallowing the claim of the petitioner to exclude the lands, based upon the deed of trust dated March 26, 1960. As pointed out by him, the assessment came to be made under Section 65 in view of the composition application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this was never a matter urged before the authority. No doubt, the powers of revision are very wide in character. But, that does not mean that the revisional authority could go beyond the case pleaded by the petitioner before the original authority and gran't him the relief. That, in effect, would mean substitution of the original authority which cannot be permitted under law. Strictly speaking, there is nothing for revision, since the point relating to the exemption on the basis of the deed of trust was never even urged before the original authority. In effect and substance what the petitioner seeks is the h...
Premraj and Ganpatraj and Co. (P) Ltd. (Now Known as Madras Electrical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad40; 1977(1)ELT166(Mad)
ORDERKoshal, J.1. The petitioner before me is M/s. Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. (P.) Ltd. (now known as M/s. Madras Electrical Conductors (P) Ltd., and hereinafter referred to as the Company), which has been carrying on business at Madras and in the course thereof imported 99707 tons of electrolytic aluminium wire bars under bill of entry No. D. 1796 dated 17-6-1967. The duties payable by the Company on the goods under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as the Act) were worked out by the assessing officer on the basis that customs duty was due at 15 % of the value of the goods and another type of duty known as countervailing duty was due at the rate of Rs. 740/- per metric ton under Section 2(a) of the Tariff Act. Really, however, countervailing duty had been reduced in the case of the goods in question from Rs. 740/- per metric ton to Rs. 620/- per metric ton by notification No. 170/1967 dated 26-5-1967, issued by the Government of India, whichstated thus --'In exercise of ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills (Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR646(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The assessee, which is a private limited company, claimed development rebate of Rs. 2,63,015 for the assessment year 1967-68 on the value of newly added plant and machinery. The Income-tax Officer while assessing the assessee for the said year, noticed that the value of the machinery, namely, Rs. 13,15,074, included an amount of Rs. 48,342 being the increase in the cost of Russian machinery on account of the devaluation of Indian currency. The assessee's claim was based on the fact that its actual cost of the said machinery had increased consequent on the increase in the rate of exchange on the devaluation as they were acquired before the date of devaluation. The Income-tax Officer negatived the assessee's claim in view of the express provisions of Section 43A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which according to him clearly prohibited the changes in actual cost for the purpose of granting development rebate under Section 33. In that view of the matter, he reworked the compu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. I.A.E.C. (Pumps) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR353(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. All these references relate to the same assessee and deal with the same question but concern different assessment years. T.C.No. 59/72 covers assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68, T.C. No. 33/74 covers assessment year 1968-69 and T C. No. 234/74 covers assessment year 1969-70.2. The assessee entered into an agreement on October 12, 1959, with M/s. Societa Italiana Pompe Aturia of Italy (hereinafter referred to as 'Aturia') for manufacture of submersible pumps, centrifugal pumps, etc. The relevant clauses of the agreement were as follows :3. Clause (i) stated that Aturia shall grant a licence to the assessee to manufacture and sell electric submersible pumps up to 12 HP; Clause (ii) dealt with supply to the assessee with a copy of patents deposited in India and in force in various countries such as United States, Germany and England ; Clause (iii) provided that the assessee will have exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the above pumps within India and imposed an obligat...
Premraj and Ganpatraj and Company (P.) Limited (Now Known as Madras El ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ302
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner before me is Messrs. Premraj and Ganpatraj and Company (Private) Limited (now known as Messrs. Madras Electrical Conductors (Private) Limited and hereinafter referred to as the company) which has been carrying on business at Madras and in the course thereof imported 99,707 tons of electrolytic aluminium wire bars under bill of entry No. D-1796 dated the 17th of June, 1967. The duties payable by the company on the goods under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were worked out by the assessing officer on the basis that customs duty was due at 15 per cent. of the value of the goods and another type of duty known as courtervailing duty was due at the rate of Rs. 740 pe metric ton under Section 2(a) of the Tariff Act. Really, however, countervailing duty had been reduced in the case of the goods in question from Rs. 740 per metric ton to Rs. 620 per metric ton by notification No. 170 of 1967 dated the 26th of May, 1967 issued by ...
Addl. Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. P. Krishnamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR212(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. There was a partnership firm under the name and style of Messrs. S. R. P. Ponnuswamy Chettiar, carrying on business in retail in textiles. The partners and their respective shares in the profits and losses were as under : 1.S.R.P.Ponnuswamy Chettiar30%2.P. Jagatheesan, Son of No. 116% 3.P. Murugesan do.5%4.P. Venkatesan do.16%5.P. Sivanandan do.16%6.P. Krishnamoorthy do.16%2. Four partners, who are the assessees in these references, retried from thepartnership with effect from April 17, 1964. At the time of retirement, asstated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order, they tookwhatever they were entitled to from the partnership firm, namely, theamounts of capital invested along with profits and shares to their credit.The firm was reconstituted with the continuing two partners andcertain others by a deed dated July I, 1964, and that partnership becameeffective from April 17, 1964, namely, the date on which the four assesseesherein retired. The Gift-tax Officer...
E.i D. Parry Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT18(Mad)
Koshal, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely. Writ Petition No. 1746 of 1972 and Writ Petitions Nos. 1453 and 1676 of 1973. In Writ Petition No. 1453 of 1973, the petitioner is Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, a corporate body manufacturing chemical fertilisers in a factory situate at Avadi, while the other two petitions have been instituted by another Corporate body known as E.I.D. Parry Limited which is running a similar factory at Ranipet2. The circumstances which have given rise to the three petitions may be shortly stated. No excise duty was leviable in respect of chemical fertilisers till the 28th of February, 1969. With effect from the 1st of of March, 1969, however, Schedule 1 to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended by the addition of Item 14HH according to which 10 per cent ad valorem excise duty was levied on chemical fertilisers. On the close of the ...
K.R. Raman Vs. the Special Deputy Tehsildar, Tenancy Records, Tirupatt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad45
ORDERMohan, J. 1. How light heartedly the vital rights of the tenants could be dealt with is exemplified in this case. The petitioner filed an application to register his name as a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. The petitionerreceived summons on 22-10-1972, stating that hearing will take place on '27th' of which month it was not made known. The petitioner presumably thought that it must be only in the month of October and he appeared for the enquiry. But nothing happened on that day. Thereafter the enquiry is alleged to have taken place on 29-11-1972, regarding which the petitioner did not receive any notice. The matter was proceeded therefore ex parte. In spite of his filing appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer about there being no enquiry, that plea fell on deaf ears. Curiously, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that an enquiry took place on 26-11-1972. The matter was taken up in revision. The District Revenue Officer would co...
K.R. Raman Vs. the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tenancy Records and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ234
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. How lightheartedly the vital rights of the tenants could be dealt with is exemplified in this case. The petitioner filed as application to register his name as a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. The petitioner received summons on 22nd October, 1972 stating that hearing will take place on '27th', of which month it was not made known. The petitioner presumably thought that it must be only in the month of October and he appeared for the enquiry. But nothing happened on that day. Thereafter the enquiry is alleged to have taken place on 29th November, 1972 regarding which the petitioner did not receive any notice. The matter was proceeded therefore ex parte. In spite of his filing appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer about there being no enquiry, that plea fell on deaf ears. Curiously, the Revenue Divisional Officer held that an enquiry took place on 26th November, 1972. The matter was taken up in revision. The Distri...
Sampath Financial Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. N.P.M. Abdul Rahman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad160
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The plaintiff (appellant) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was carrying on business in chit transactions. In respect of a chit in group No. 73, chit No. 11 of the face value of Rs. 4,000 and consisting of 20 monthly instalments of Rs. 200 each, the first defendant was a subscriber. Each subscriber had to pay a monthly instalment of Rs. 200 for 20 months. This chit is what Is usually known as 'auction chit'' and each subscriber is entitled to bid at the auction held in each month. As per the general rules whoever has bid at the lowest will be paid the prize amount and the difference between the total amount after deducting the commission of 5% payableto the plaintiff and the prize amount is divided among the subscribers as dividend or Kasar. A person who had been paid at the auction will have to execute a promissory note along with the surety guaranteeing payment of the future instalments. The general rules relating to the chit of the plain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »