Chennai Court February 1978 Judgments
Bombay Hardware Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR586(Mad)
GOVINDA NAIR C.J. - Two questions have been referred to us for our opinion in relation to the proceedings for imposition of penalty on an assessee to income-tax for the year 1958-59. The question read as follows :'1. Whether, on the fact and circumstance of the case, the provisions of section 28(1)(c) are attracted ?2. Whether the order of the Tribunal sustaining the levy of penalty to the extent of Rs. 13,500 is valid in law ?'The essential facts for disposing of this reference may be stated thus : in the assessments proceedings it was found that the income returned by the assessee did not represent its true income, and therefore, the Income-tax officer made an estimate of the income of the assessee. The amount fixed as the income, which had not been returned by the assessee, by the Income-tax Officer, was reduced in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and further reduced in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal fixed the amount to be added to the income returned by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ismail Vs. S. Abdul Salam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad24
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, dismissing C. M. A. No. 112 of 1972, preferred against the order of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, who while dismissing the petition for discharge, directed the insolvent 'to pay Rs. 50 per mensem towards the debt owned by him to the 4th respondent.' The learned Subordinate Judge as well as the learned District Judge erred in directing the insolvent to pay, after refusing to grant an order of discharge. By reason of Section 41, sub-sec (2)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the court can grant an order discharge subject to any conditions with respect to any earning or income which may afterwards become due to the insolvent or with respect to his having acquired property. One such condition may be a direction to pay, as in the instant case. The insolvency court has no power, while refusing to grant a discharg...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. Sree Shanmuga Esta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC226(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees purchased a reserve forest for the purpose of coffee plantation. They cleared a portion of the said land and sold the timber and firewood obtained by felling and cutting the trees which were natural growths. They have also converted some firewood into charcoal. The assessing authority considered that the assessees should be treated as dealers in timber, firewood and charcoal and assessed a turnover of Rs. 3,00,396.16. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Pollachi, held that the timber that was cut by the assessees was sized and sold as sleepers, that this cutting of the trees was during the process of plantation and that the assessees should be deemed to be dealers in respect of the timber that was sized and sold, but they were not dealers in respect of firewood. He held-that the sales of firewood were not liable to tax on the ground that the turnover on those sales were realised during the process of plantation by cutting and removing spontaneous grow...
Tag this Judgment!S. Leelavathi and anr. Vs. N. Durairaj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad74
ORDER1. The petitioning creditors alleged that the debtor who is the first respondent, has committed acts of insolvency under Ss. 9(b), 9(g) and 9(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and that therefore he has to be adjudicated as insolvent. The case of the petitioning creditors is as follows: Through a Finance Broker, one Mr. N. Gurumukal, examined as P. W. 2, the first petitioner and the second petitioner claimed that they have advanced on 6-5-1976 and 17-3-1976 respectively sums Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 6000/- on promissory notes executed in their favour in and by which the first respondent agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Towards the promissory note executed in favour of the first petitioning creditor, no amount has been paid. But it is said that towards the second promissory note in favour of the second petitioning creditor, a sum of Rs. 1000/- and interest up to 17-4-1976 is said to have been paid. The balance amount die and payable under the...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition Municipal Cases, Madurai Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad61
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These five appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai on references made to the court by the aggrieved parties-claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter, to be referred as the Act. For the construction of maternity home in Sundarajapurarn area in Madurai town an extent of 31467 sq. ft. in the first instance and an additional extent of 4588 sq. ft in S. No. 2003/1 was acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 22-9-1965 and a Government memorandum dated 16-3-1970, issued by the Government under Section 49(2) of the Act. We shall in the course of our judgment consider the necessity for the Government to act under Section 49(2) of the Act. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the original extent of 31467 sq. ft. in the above survey number was acquired and it is in consequence of the memorandum-dated 16-3-1970 communicated to the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Madras Oils and Fertilisers (P.) Ltd. Vs. G. Shan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas903(Mad)
Ramaprasad Rao, J. 1. This judge's summons is taken out by the official liquidator, as the official liquidator of the Madras Oils and Fertilisers Private Ltd., now in liquidation, for a declaration that respondents 1 to 5 as directors or as former officers of the company had misapplied or become liable or accountable for the monies as stated by him in the schedule to his report in support of the summons, and consequent upon the directors not having accounted for the same, he is representing the body of the creditors is entitled to recover the said amounts under Sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, read with Section 460(4) therein. Admittedly, the amounts claimed and of which he has given out the details in his report, are amounts which were payable to the componay between the years 1958 and 1966. The case of the official liquidator is that each of the respondents were directors on the date when the order of winding up was passed on July 28, 1972 and that on a scrutiny of the book...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition Municipal Cases Vs. G. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ24
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These five appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, on references made to the Court by the aggrieved parties-claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'. For the construction of a maternity home in Sundararajapuram area in Madurai town an extent of 31,467 sq. ft. in the first instance and an additional extent of 4,588 sq. ft. in S. No. 2003/1 was acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 22nd September, 1965, and a Government Memorandum dated 16th March, 1970, issued by the Government under Section 49(2) of the Act. We shall in the course of our judgment consider the necessity for the Government to act under Section 49(2) of the Act. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the original extent of 31,467 sq. ft. in the above survey number was acquired and it is in consequence of the memorandum dated 16th ...
Tag this Judgment!Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT673(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Thursday the 15th day of December 1977, Friday the 6th day of January, Monday the 9th day of January, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 12.8.75 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records of the Respondents culminating in the order of the first Respondent dated 16.6.76 and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr S. Ramasubramaniam for M/s. King and Partridge Advocates for the Petitioner, and Mr. T. Chengalvarayan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order.2. The petitioners manufacture biscuits at their factory at Auroville, Pondicherry. The biscuits are items falling under Tariff item I-C of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Sa...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Brothers Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC500(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee in this case agreed to supply to the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Madurai Circle, auditorium chairs for the Auditorium Block in the Madurai Agricultural College at Othakadai, Madurai. The notice calling for tenders giving the item of goods to be supplied is as follows: Agreement for the work of providing seating arrangements for Auditorium Block in Madurai Agricultural College at Othakadai, Madurai. S.No. Qty. Description of the item MDSS Rate in Unit in AmountNo. figures figuresand andwords words1 2 3 4 5 6 71. 860 Fabricating and supplying of audito-Nos. rium chair with wooden seat back,arm and partition ends stitchingupholstery fixing and assemblingthe seats and back to form chair onstanchion with legs, paintingtwo coats the wood work withsuitable colour approved by thedepartment, etc., complete.(The cost of the chair should be in-clusive of providing foam rubber2 thick for seat and cotton padd-ing 1' thick for back, rexine clothto stitch over th...
Tag this Judgment!V.N.M.S. Ayyachami Nadar and Bros. Vs. the Board of Revenue (Commercia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC278(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The short question arising in these appeals turns on the interpretation of the notification, which reads as follows :G. O. No. 1764, Revenue, dated 5th April, 1960, as amended by G. O. No. 5274, Revenue, dated 22nd December, 1960, with retrospective effect and Notification III No. 384 of 1964 dated 18th September, 1964.-'In exercise...the Governor of Madras hereby exempts with effect from the 1st April, 1960, all sales of vegetables other than dried and dehydrated vegetables, fresh fruits, betel and plantain leaves, flowers, eggs, meat and fish (other than canned meat and fish) and the purchases of potatoes from the tax payable under the said Act.2. The said Act is the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The commodity with which we are concerned has been termed as 'masi'. The method by which 'masi' is prepared has been elaborately dealt with in paragraph 6 of the Board's order. It is as follows :I have carefully examined the objections in the reply and the arguments...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »