Chennai Court January 1978 Judgments
M. Raghava Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR640(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The first of these tax cases raises a question of assessment to gift-tax for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, and the other case, T.C. No. 255 of 1974, is concerned with the assessment of wealth-tax for the year of assessment 1968-69. The assessee in both these cases is the same individual, one Raghava Mudaliar, who is admittedly the head of a Hindu undivided family. 2. The questions that have been referred to us in the two tax. cases, respectively, read as follows : T.C. No. 176 of 1974 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 1,05,000, respectively, would constitute gifts for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?' T.C. No. 255 of 1974 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 1,53,016 belonged to the assessee and not to the Hindu undivided family and, therefore, is to be assessed as individual in his wealth-tax ass...
Tag this Judgment!E.P. Ramakrishnan Vs. V. Bashyam Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad387
1. The appellant is an insolvent, who was adjudicated as such on his own petition in I. P. No. 31 of 1975 on the file of this Court. The relevant facts which led to this voluntary adjudication may be stated thus : The insolvent, who was an employee as an officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, retired on 22-9-1974. Consequent upon his retirement, he received substantial amounts by way of gratuity and provident fund on 3-1-1975 and 9-1-1975, totalling a sum of Rs. 29,749-66. The first respondent, who was admittedly a creditor and who was also his neighbour, apparently being aware of such withdrawals of large funds by the insolvent from his quondam employer, was not satisfied about the voluntary adjudication sought for by the insolvent on 22-4-1975. But as law permits a person to assume on himself the badge of insolvency by filing a petition for voluntary adjudication after satisfying the requirements of a debtor's petition for adjudication, the first respondent cannot succes...
Tag this Judgment!India Leather Corporation (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: [1989]179ITR179(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred to us, in relation to the assessment year 1968-69 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit of Rs. 6,63,658 obtained by the assessee during the relevant previous year by the sale of chemicals imported by it on the strength of the licence issued to it based on its earlier export performance of leather goods processed by it was not attributable to the manufacturing activity carried on by it and, hence, the assessee could not be considered as an 'industrial company' as defined in Section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act 1968?'2. The assessee's main business, admittedly, is manufacturing activity as a result of which leather goods were processed. By virtue of the export of such goods in earlier years, the assessee obtained import entitlements and pursuant to the licence issued, the assessee had imported chemicals...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rambal (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR130(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question for our answer:'Whether, in the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee could be allowed development rebate at 35% on Rs. 2,30,840 being the cost of the machinery installed during the relevant previous year, despite the fact that they were used not merely for the manufacture of nuts, bolts and screws for automobiles, but also for the manufacture of such articles for other machinery '2. The year of assessment, as is evident from the question, is 1969-70, and the corresponding accounting period ended with 30th June, 1968. The machinery was acquired for a sum of Rs. 2,30,840 admittedly for the business of the assessee and it is not disputed before us that it was used wholly for the purpose of its business.3. Section 33(1)(a) and (b), with which we are concerned, insists on machinery being acquired by the assessee and being wholly used for the purpose of the business...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Sundaram (Decd.) (by Lrs.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR960(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question that has to be answered in this reference reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the foreign pension of Rs. 10,008 accrued abroad in foreign currency and paid to the assessee as stated above is liable to be taxed under the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The facts as stated in para. 2 of the statement of the case read thus: 'The assessee is a permanent resident of Madras. He was formerly employed as a teacher under the Malaysian Government and retired from that service on 27th July, 1951. He is being paid pension by the said Government. The pension is paid to him in India by the Accountant-General, Madras, in Indian currency, in pursuance of a block arrangement entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia. As a result of this arrangement, the Government of India is being credited with dollars by the Malaysian Government. During the relevant previous year, the assessee received Rs. 10,008 as pensi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajyam Pictures Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR847(Mad)
Govtndan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred to us for our opinion relating to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 is formulated thus :'Whether the appeals preferred by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the charging of interest under Section 139 for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were competent?'2. At the relevant time, Section 139(1) of the Income-tux Act, 1961, was in these terms:'139. Return of income.--(1) Every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed-- (a) in the case of every person whose total income, or the total income of any other person in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anamallais Bus Transports (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Mad)219; [1979]118ITR739(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question referred to us for decision is in these terms : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,50,361 being the amount provided for payment of bonus was allowable as a deduction in computing the income from business for the assessment year 1965-66?' 2. The assessee had made certain provision for payment of bonus for the accounting year 1964-65 as detailed at page 15 of the typed set of papers. The total amount under the provision amounted to Rs. 2,50,361. 3. The Tribunal noticed that the ITO himself had allowed a sum of Rs. 2,11,016 paid out towards bonus during the relevant accounting period. The dispute before the Tribunal related to a sum of Rs. 39,345. Regarding this sum the Tribunal followed its earlier order in I.T.A. Nos. 2321 and 14167 of 1965-66, relating to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 dated September 22, 1967, and allowed this sum of Rs. 39,345 also. In CIT v. Anamallais Bus Transports (P.) Ltd. : [1975]99ITR4...
Tag this Judgment!Pappayammal Vs. Arumugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ432
ORDERPaul, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Judical Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri dismissing the petition C. M. P. No. 3426/77 filed by the revision petitioner in P. R. C. No. 17 of 1977 praying that the approvers in the aforesaid murder case should be examined only by the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and not by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri to whom the case had been transferred by the orders of this Court or in the alternative without examining the approvers, the case should be committed to the Sessions Court.2. The revision petitioner is the widow of the deceased Palaniappan who was murdered on 24-6-1974 at about 10 P. M. A charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. II, Salem against the respondents for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 34, 341 and 201 I. P. C. and under Section 3 (1) read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Eventually, the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Ammal Vs. Lab Chemicals and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad272; (1978)1MLJ523
1. In these revisions, the landlady is the petitioner. The matters arise out of rent control petitions filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and. Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred-to as the-Act). H. R. G. No. 2270 of 1971 wag filed by the landlady- against Messrs. Lab Chemicals, the respondent in C. R. P. No. 439 of 1975. H.R.C. No. 2271 of 1971 was filed by the landlady against P.S. Palani Chetti respondent in C. R. P. No. 440 of 1975. Both were entertained by the Eighth Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller), Madras. According to the petitioner she required the premises In the occupation of the respective tenants for the immediate purpose of demolishing the same and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. The case of the petitioner as could be gathered from the petitions filed before the Rent Controller, was that her husband was doing business ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR39(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the years 1966-67 to 1969-70 in relation to the same assessee, Messrs. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., Madurai, reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company is engaged in 'priority industry' as envisaged in the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of Sections 33(1)(b)(B)(1)(a) and 80-I ?'2. An identical question came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court twice. The matter was dealt with by a Division Bench in the first instance in the decision in CIT v. Mittal Steel Re-rolling & Allied Industries : [1977]108ITR207(Ker) , and in view of the doubts about the correctness of the decision being raised, the question was referred to a Full Bench later tinder another reference, and the Full Bench considered the question in the deci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »