Chennai Court December 1978 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Madras Fertilisers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1978
Reported in: (1980)13CTR(Mad)261; [1980]122ITR139(Mad)
JUDGEMENTISMAIL J. - The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company obtained a certificate of commencement of business on December 8, 1966. The major shareholders in the assessee-company are the Government of India and Amoco India Incorporated which is a subsidiary of the American International Oil Company, which again is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil Company (Indiana). The object of the assessee-company is to manufacture and market ammonia, urea, and other complex fertilizers. The production of these items had not been commenced till March 31, 1970, as the factory itself was under construction as on that date.These references are concerned with the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee-company which required funds to meet the cost of construction of its plant, apart from its paid-up capital of Rs. 13.6 crores, entered into a loan agreement with the Chemical Bank New York Trust Company in December, 1966 for borr...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. M.R. Pratap
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1981]128ITR421(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. There were two brothers by name, Rajagopal Naidu and Rangiah Naidu. Rajagopal Naidu was employed in M/s. Simpson and Company Ltd., and later he was a foreman in M/s. Addison and Company Ltd. for some time. Still later he started his own automobile concern called 'Rajagopal Motor Works'. His brother, Rangiah Naidu, assisted him in his business. Rangiah Naidu died in 1934 and Rajagopal Naidu died on March 25, 1956. Both during the lifetime of Rajagopal Naidu and afterwards, the heirs of Rangiah Naidu lived along with Rajagopal Naidu and the members of his family as if they constituted one family. They had not inherited any ancestral property. However, during the lifetime of both Rajagopal Naidu and Rangiah Naidu, they had their independent earnings and kept their earnings separately and also acquired properties in their individual names and enjoyed them as their separate properties, though by reason of their continued love and affection between them as brothers, they continu...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thyagasundara Mudaliar and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1981]127ITR520(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. Though these two tax cases raise a similar question and deal with the same assessment year 1969-70, the facts are slightly different, and we shall deal with the facts separately. 2. Tax Case No. 387 of 1974 is concerned with a partnership firm by name M/s. D. Thiagasundara Mudaliar. Under a deed of partnership executed on February 11, 1966, the firm came into existence and consisted of two partners, viz., D. Thiagasundara Mudaliar having 60% share and M. Govindaraja Mudaliar having 40% share. Govindaraja Mudaliar died on October 17, 1968. On January 17, 1969, a new deed of partnership was drawn up which recited that the new partnership came into effect from October 18, 1968, consisting of D. Thiagasundara Mudaliar with 70% share, M. G. Kannan, the major son of the deceased, Govindaraja Mudaliar, with 15% share, and M. G. Subramaniam, the minor son of the deceased, Govindaraja Mudaliar being admitted to the benefits of the partnership to the extent of 15% share. Admittedly...
Natesa Reddiar and anr. Vs. Saradhambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad223
1. This second appeal has been posted before the Full Bench as the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act (Act 26 of 1974) has been challenged by the appellants herein.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 169 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram seeking partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/4th share in the suit properties which consisted of two houses and certain agricultural lands. Her case was that her deceased husband Elumalai Reddiar, defendants 3 and 4, one Kannappa Reddiar, the husband of the second defendant and father of the first defendant and one Devendran were members of a Hindu Joint Family, that the plaintiff's husband died in the year 1947, that Devendran died in the year 1948 but that the family continues to be joint and therefore she is entitled to claim 1/4th share as the widow of the deceased co-parcener, Elumalai Reddiar.3. The suit was resiste...
Natesa Reddiar and anr. Vs. Saradhambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ33
Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal has been posted before the Full Bench as the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lords) Act (XXVI of 1947) has been challenged by the appellants herein,2. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 169 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram seeking partition, and separate possession of her allaged l/4th share in the suit properties which consisted of two houses and certain agricultural lands. Her case was that her deceased husband Elumalai Reddiar, defendants 3 and 4, one Kannappa Reddiar, the husband of the second defendant and father of the first defendant and one Devendran were members of a Hindu joint family, that the plaintiff's husband died in the year 1947, that Devendran died in the year 1948 but that the family continues to be joint and therefore she is entitled to claim l/4th share as the widow of the deceased coparcener, Elumalai Reddiar.3. The suit...
Yarn and Cloth Processing Centre Vs. the Assistant Collector of Centra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS218D; 1979(4)ELT175(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner's prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order of the second respondent confirming the order of the first respondent and calling upon the petitioner to pay differential excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,812 - 27 under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The writ petition lies within a narrow compass. The petitioner is a processing centre at Erode and it receives cotton fabrics woven out of bleached/ dyed yarn for purposes of processing. Such goods were entered by it in its records as 'bleached and/or dyed, but not printed fabrics' in the Pt. I register at the time of entry into the factory. Excise duty on the fabrics processed at the centre was being paid at the rates specified in Sl. Nos. 10(a) and 10(b) of the second Table to the Notification No. 88/69, dated 1-3-1969.3. By a notice dated 18-12-1971, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Erode, called upon the petitioner to s...
Binny Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS290D; 1979(4)ELT230(Mad)
1. The common question for consideration in all these petitions is whether the respondents were entitled to levy and collect excise duty on blended yarn prior to the introduction of Item No. 18E by the Finance Act, 1972, on the strength of Trade Notice, dated 10-5-1973 and Exemption Notification No. 156/64, dated 16-10-1964, issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Having regard to the controversy, the prayer in the petitions is for a declaration that excise duty levied and collected on blended yarn prior to the introduction of Item 18E is illegal and ultra vires and for a mandamus or direction to the second respondent to refund the excise duty collected on blended yarn during the earlier period. Except for some difference in the periods for which refund of excise duty is asked for, the petitioners have set out a common case in their respective petitions.2. As illustrative of facts, the case in W.P. No. 1526 of 1976 can b...
Duraisami Mudaliar Vs. Ramasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ380
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The first defendant/judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 356 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The first respondent herein is the decree-holder/plaintiff in the suit. Certain facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring his right over the suit vacant site and for possession of the same. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court made it clear that the decree for declaration and possession is referable only to the vacant site and not to the superstructure, which is said to be in the nature of a bunk shop and is said to have been put up by the first defendant even prior to the institution of the suit. No relief is said to have been claimed by the first defendant in respect of this superstructure. The plaintiff levied execution of the decree in E.P. No. 155 of 1977. The first defendant filed E.A. No. 243 of 1977 praying for an order that the plaintiff is not entitled to pos...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chitra Sagar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR699(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The assessee is a firm which carried on business as film producer. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee filed an estimate under Section 212(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'); on March 15, 1965, estimating a tax payable at Rs. 4,200 which sum was also paid on the said date. The return was later filed admitting an income of Rs. 18,383 on January 22, 1970, resulting in a tax demand ofRs. 532. In view of the payment of advance tax of Rs. 4,200 the assessee was given credit for interest of Rs. 1,313 under Section 214 of the Act.2. The Addl. CIT, Madras, purported to revise the order of the ITO under Section 263. He took the view that as the amount of advance tax was not paid in pursuance of a valid estimate since the said estimate and payment had to be made on or before March 1, 1965, under the law applicable to the relevant assessment year, the order of the ITO granting interest underSection 214 and omitting to charge interest und...
R. Lakshminarayana Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR767(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The matter relates to the assessment year 1962-63. Admittedly, the assessee did not file a voluntary return as required by Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). A notice was issued under Section 139(2) read with Section 148 of the Act, calling upon the assessee to file the return of income on February 8, -1966. Thereafter, the ITO issued a show cause notice calling upon the assessee to explain why a penalty should not be levied for his failure to furnish the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee offered his explanation, but the ITO held that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return as required by Section 139(1) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 8,607. The assessment as well as the levy of penalty were taken up in appeal to the AAC, who reduced the quantum of tax and consequently reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,545. Against the order of the AAC, the assessee took up the. matter in further appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »