Chennai Court June 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.
Puthuthotam Estates (1943) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1980]125ITR41(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This tax revision case has been filed by the assessee to revise the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I.T., Madras, dated July 13, 1973. The assesses was assessed for the assessment year 1970-71 to agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agrl, I.T. Act, 1955, by the Agrl. ITO, Coimbatore, by his order dated September 19, 1971. He determined a loss of Rs. 52,377. The assessee appealed to the AAC and the appeal was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner on January 31, 1972. In the said appeal, the AAC held that the assessee was eligible for the development allowance on new tea plantings under Section 33A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AAC directed the Agrl. ITO to allow the claim on the production of a certificate from the Tea Board, Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal to the Agrl. I.T. Appellate Tribunal in respect of other matters and this appeal came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on August 24, 1972.2. The Commissioner of Agrl. I.T. took proceedings under...
India Automobiles and Co. and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ178
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These appeals are against the judgment of N.S.Ramaswami, J. Two suits were tried by him together and he rendered a common judgment thereon. No oral evidence was let in but documentary evidence was entertained and marked in one of the suits. The parties are referred to with reference to their rank and description in C.S. No. 54 of 1969. C.S. No. 54 of 1969 is a suit filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the defendants, the first defendant of which is M/s. India Automobiles & Co., and defendants 2 to 6 being its partners, the respondents herein, for recovery of arrears of rent as their tenants. C.S. No. 87 of 1972 is a suit filed by the first defendant in C.S. No. 54 of 1969 (India Automobiles Co.) against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a declaration that they are entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act in respect of one of the demised items. Seven co-owners owned a large extent of land in Moun...
First Income-tax Officer, City Circle V, Madras-34 Vs. M. R. Dhanalaks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR413(Mad)
RATNAVEL PANDIAN J. - The first defendant in O.S. No. 136 of 1970 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, is the appellant. The first respondent Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who was the plaintiff in the original action, filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit properties and declaration that they are not liable to attached in recovery proceedings with regard to the arrears of income-tax due by the third defendant and for costs of suit.The first respondent-plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit properties situate in the villages of Pudupakkam and Kelambakkam by virtue of her purchases made, according to her, out of her own funds, under various sale deeds marked as exibits A-3 to A-10 of the year 1961 to 1965. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the said properties ever since the said dates, paying kist, etc. According to her, the defendant has no manner of right to the properties. She would allege that the third defendant married one...
income-tax Officer, Hundi Circle I, Madras Vs. K. A. Govindaswamy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR593(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Paul J., in Application No. 173 of 1973, in I.P. No. 39 of 1970. A petitioning creditor filed a petition in insolvency against his debtor, one P. Vasudevan, on the ground that the debtor committed acts of insolvency under sections 9(d)(ii) and 9(d)(iii) and 9(g) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This petition was presented on May 4, 1970. Prior to the presentation of this petition, to wit, on January 15, 1970, Vasudevan (the debtor) entered into an agreement with one Govindaswamy, the first respondent for the sale of his house and ground bearing plot No. 113, 12th Cross Street, Indra Nagar, for a sum ofRs. 83,000 and in pursuance of that agreement, the first respondent, Govindaswamy, had paid Rs. 43,000 and it was agreed that the balance should be paid after Vasudevan gets clearance from the State Housing Board with whom Vasudevan had a lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between him and the board in or about ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bimetal Bearings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR131(Mad)
Sethueaman, J.1. This reference is made by the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with the prov isions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.2. The assessments under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter called ' the Act '), related to the assessment years 1966-67, 3967-68 and 1968-69. The provisions of the Act levied what is called ' surtax ' on the chargeable profits after giving what is called a statutory deduction. The chargeable profit is the total income of the assessee computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Act. The statutory deduction is given at the rate of 10% of the capital of the company as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule or an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 whichever is greater. We are concerned in the present reference with Rule 4 ot the Sec...
Fairmacs Trading Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC157(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These tax revision cases arise out of an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7th February, 1974, in four appeals relating to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72. The assessee is a dealer in ship's stores and is also doing business as ship chandlers. The assessee imports goods from abroad for the purpose of supplying the said goods either to foreign going vessels or to diplomatic personnel. The said goods, which are imported, are received in a customs bonded warehouse and at the time of placing the indent and also in the subsequent bills of lading and invoice, there was a declaration by the assessee that the goods were intended either for 're-export' as ship's stores and/or for supply to diplomatic corps. The goods were cleared under the supervision of the customs authorities whenever they were sold by the assessee. In the present case, we are concerned with supplies made to certain ships located at that time in the Madras Harbour. The orders for supplie...
Syed AzimudIn Vs. Syed MazharuddIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ466; (1977)2MLJ464
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The appellant has been fined Rs. 1,000 by N.S. Ramaswami, J. In default of payment of that sum, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant has paid the fine.2. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the appellant has not been really guilty of contempt, in that he had not wilfully disobeyed any order of the Court. It may be mentioned at this stage that the appellant was punished for contempt on the basis that he wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court to produce the account books of the Wakf of which he was the Muthawalli. A few more facts have to be stated to appreciate the contentions urged by his counsel at the time of the hearing of this appeal.3. There was a suit for rendition of accounts which was numbered as C.S. No. 1 of 1965. The prayer in that suit against the appellant was only for rendition of accounts. Ismail, J., considered that suit and found that the contentions of the parties comprehend...
Kausalya Santhanam Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR469(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - All the above three writ petitions had been filed by the same petitioner. In respect of her land holdings, the petitioner had applied for composition under section 65 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, year after year. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, there was an order of composition passed on June 16, 1966, on an application made by the petitioner on June 8, 1966. Once an order of composition is made, that will enure for a period of three years under section 65. Therefore, though the order of composition was passed on June 16, 1966, for the assessment year 1966-67, it will enure for three assessment years ending with the assessment year 1968-69. However, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, after issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the order of composition should not be cancelled and after getting an explanation from the petitioner, had cancelled the said order of composition dated June 16, 1966, by his order, dated August 1...
N. Khader Sheriff Saheb Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR50(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - The petitioner, who is the same in all the writ petitions, is one Khader Sheriff Saheb. He was an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer,Arcot. Orders of composition had been passed year after year under section 65 of the Act in respect of part of the lands held by him on the basis of the return filed by him. It has been mentioned in the composition application filed by the petitioner for all the years 1963-64 to 1971-72, that the exact extent of the land held by him in Mukundarayapuram village could not be given in his return as the settlement proceedings are pending in respect thereof, and that he had no objection for revision of the assessment after the completion of the said settlement proceedings and after the exact extent of land belonging to the petitioner is clearly ascertained. Based on the said statement of the petitioner in his composition applications, composition orders had been passed by the ...
Khiaram Khushiram and ors. Vs. Kamadhenu Drinks and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad252
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. These two insolvency petitions have been filed by two sets of creditors for adjudicating the first respondent-firm and its alleged partners, respondents 2 to 9 as insolvents. The first respondent is known as Kamadhenu Drinks. The creditors in I. P, No. 41 of 1976 had advanced different amounts on hundies or promissory notes. The first respondent agreed to repay the amounts borrowed within a period of 90 days from the said date of the hundies, The said promissory notes or hundies were executed at No. 10, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras-18, by one V. P. Muthukumaraswamy Gounder who is admittedly a partner in the said firm. According to the petitioning creditors in I. P. No. 41 of 1976 the first of them went to No. 10, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar road, on 1st, 2nd and 4th March, 1976 and did not find the board of Kamadhenu Drinks previously found in the said premises. He was not able to contact anyone of the partners at the aforesaid premises and it is, therefore, st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »