Chennai Court February 1978 Judgments
Mohamed Abdul Kader Mariciar Alias M.M. Maricair, Represented by Power ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ477
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the founder of a private trust known as M.M. Maricair Trust. The said trust had been created by him on 15th December, 1970. In proceedings initiated under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the lands held by the said trust have been included in the holding of the petitioner and the petitioner's holding was determined as 20-4028 standard hectares by the Authorised Officer. The said computation of the extent of the petitioner's holding by the Authorised Officer was challenged before the Land Tribunal by the petitioner. The Land Tribunal also affirmed the view taken by the Authorised Officer. The petitioner has therefore come before this Court by way of this revision petition.2. Before me, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the document is styled as a family trust it is in fact a public trust and therefore properties owned by the said trust will not be ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Palanisami Chetti Vs. Muruganna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ470
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. While the first defendant in O.S. No. 174 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, is the appellant in A.S. No. 346 of 1975, the 2nd defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 88 of 1976. The plaintiff Muruganna Gounder, filed the suit for specific performance of Exhibit A-8, dated 5th December, 1973, the agreement for sale executed by the 1st defendant (the appellant in A.S. No. 346 of 1975) in respect of the suit properties for Rs. 18,750. Under the said agreement for sale the 1st defendant received an advance of Rs. 2000 and undertook to execute the sale on receipt of the balance of consideration of Rs. 16,750 within a period of 3 months from the date of the agreement. The suit property is an extent of 5.96 acres comprised in S. No. 408/6 and 408/8. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Though he called upon the 1st defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Al. Kr. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR694(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The question referred in this case runs as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80T on the gross amount of capital gains on assets other than short-term capital assets but not on the net amount after set off of short-term capital loss under Section 70(2) of the Income-tax Act '2. The assessee is an individual. He derived long-term capital gains on the sale of immovable property. The amount so computed as capital gains was Rs. 1,28,344. The assessee had incurred a short-term capital loss on sale of certain shares to the extent of Rs. 76,650. Both these amounts had to be considered in the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71. The ITO set off against the capital gains of Rs. 1,28,344 the short-term capital loss of Rs. 76,650 and applied the provisions of Section 80T with reference to the balance of Rs, 51,694. The relief available to ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Hire Purchase Associa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR793(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of, the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee-association was one constituted for charitable purposes and, therefore, the income from subscriptions, entrance fees and donations would not fall for inclusion in the total assessable income ?'2. The assessee is an association registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The main objects of the association are :'(i) To promote, aid, help, encourage and develop hire purchase business. (ii) To promote and protect the interests of persons, firms, associations and other bodies corporate engaged in hire purchase business. (iii) To secure organised and concerted action, direct and indirect, on all matters connected with or having a bearing on the business of hire purchase financing. (iv) To obtain or to promote any or...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Shankar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR636(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At the instance of the Addl. CIT, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in cancelling the orders passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68?'2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, viz., T.S. Krishna and S.B. Shankar. While completing the assessment of the income under Section 143(3) on 12th October, 1966, in the hands of the firm which amounted to Rs. 43,450, the ITO observed that there was no application for registration and that it would be beneficial to the revenue, if the firm was treated as a registered firm under the provisions of Section 183(b) of the Act. Heproceeded to state that both partners were actively engaged in the business. Similarly, for the assessment year 1967-68, in completing the assessment under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Sengoda Gounder Vs. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ430
ORDERPaul, J.1. This criminal revision that only one days notice in all bail case is against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate police. The petition is dismissed with of Sankari directing, under S 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act of 1959, the revision petitioner to deliver possession of the temple, its connected records, accounts and relevant papers to the respondent herein.2. The respondent herein claiming that he has been appointed as a fit person for the Aruimigu Mariamman and Karuppannasami Temples of Akkiampatty village by the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, filed the petition under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The petition herein who was managing the temple for some time filed O.A. No. 61 of 1974 before the Deputy Commisioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras to declare him as the hereditary tru...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.K.K. Angappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR456(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee was a member of the HUF consisting of himself and his two minor sons up to the assessment year 1961-62. The HUF had interest in various partnership firms. There was a partition on March 31, 1961, in the presence of panchayatdars as a result of which the capital account of the family in the various partnership firms was equally divided between the assessee and his two minor sons, Kandaswami and Ashokan. The claim of partition was also accepted and an order under Section 25A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was also made by the ITO. In respect of the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the assessee on September 18, 1963, filed his wealth-tax returns. In these returns, the entire interest in the various partnership firms was shown as belonging to the assessee and the only liability claimed was to the sons as shown in the balance-sheet representing the amounts due to the sons in the capital account according to the panchayatdar's award. This amounted to Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!India Leather Corporation (P.) Ltd. (No. 3) Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: [1989]179ITR181(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred for our opinion reads as follows :'Whether the profit of Rs. 3,73,870 obtained by the assessee during the relevant previous year by the sale of chemicals imported by it on the strength of licences issued to it, based on its export performance of leather, both manufactured and purchased by it, was rightly held as not attributable to the manufacturing activity carried on by it ?'2. The question has to be answered with reference to Section 104(4)(a) and the Explanation to that section. It is as follows :'104. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 108, nothing contained in this section shall apply to - (a) an Indian company whose business consists mainly in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power ; . . . Explanation.--For the purpose of Clause (a) of this sub-section, the business of a company shall be deemed ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramamoorthy Vs. Nellai Metal Rolling Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas553(Mad)
Suryamurthy, J.1. This is a petition for winding up the Nellai Metal Rolling Mills P. Ltd. A promissory note has been executed by P. S. M. Ramasubramaniam and P. S. M. Mahadevan on January 10, 1975, for an alleged consideration of Rs. 50,000. The company consisted of 6 directors, namely, P. S. M. Ramasubramaniam, P. S. M. Mahadevan, P. S. M. Lakshmanan, P. S. R. Muthukrishnan, Srimathi Meenakshi Ammal and Srimathi R. Sarada, as may be seen from exh. R-8. Subsequently, all the shares of the company were purchased by Shanmughavel, Ponniah and Velayutha Nadar on June 26, 1975. Alleging that the company is not able to repay the promissory note amount despite demands, this petition has been filed to wind up the company under the provisions of Section 433(3) of the Indian Companies Act.2. This petition is resisted by the present directors of the Nellai Metal Rolling Mills P. Ltd., inter alia, on the ground that the promissory note has been created by Ramasubramaniam and Mahadevan in collusio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fomra Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR312(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred for our opinion reads as follows:'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was leviable on the assessee as no Lax was due from it onthe date of imposition of penalty ?'2. The relevant part of Section 271(1) reads as follows :'(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 or by notice given under Sub-section (2) of Section 139 or Section 148 or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by Sub-section fl) of Section 139 or by such notice, as the case may be, or... he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,-- (i) in the cases referred to in Clause (a),--... (b) in any other case, in a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »