Chennai Court February 1978 Judgments
Tax Recovery Officer, Coimbatore Vs. V. A. Ramaswami and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR408(Mad)
SURYAMURTHY J. - This is a civil revision petition against an order of the learned IInd Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, allowing E. A. No. 945 of 1974 in O. S. No. 267 of 1968 on the file of the sub-court, Coimbatore, filed by the decree-holder to raise an attachment over the amount in court deposit, being the balance of the sale price of the property of the judgment-debtor sold in court auction. V. A. Ramaswami, the first respondent herein, filed O. S. No. 267 of 1968 on the file of the sub-court, Coimbatore, against G. R. Venkatesalu, now dead, and obtained a decree for Rs. 32,141,50 with future interest and costs. This amount was due to the said V. A. Ramaswami under a promissory note executed by G. R. Venkatesalu. The deceased defendant was a defaulter in the payment of income-tax. Therefore, in 1969, on a certificate received by him from the Income-tax Officer concerned, the Tax Recovery Officer, Coimbatore, caused a notice to be served upon the defaulter, to writ G. R. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gopal and anr. Vs. S.M. Muthiah Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad79
1. The defendants in Suit No. 941 of 1971 on the file of the Third Judge, court of Small Causes, Madras, are the petitioners in this revision. The plaintiff in that suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 810 claimed to be due on a promissory note. The defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that the suit promissory note marked in this case as Ex. P-1, and which bears a date 17-4-1969 was not executed in the year 1969, but they executed the document only in the year 1967 and when they executed the document, they signed the printed form which was blank. The trial court mooted out the following points for determination-"1. Whether the defendants executed the suit pronote and borrowed the sum of Rs. 1,500;2. Whether the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 in 1967 only and that too had been discharged?"It considered the evidence, oral and documentary, placed before it. P. W. 2 is the son of the plaintiff and he would s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pappu Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR773(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us in relation to the assessment year 1966-67. We shall extract those questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the deed of partition dated March 31, 1966, was a deed of settlement liable to gift-tax under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act is valid in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner and the members of his family were not governed by Hindu law is valid in law ?'2. One Muthu Reddiar, who was a Hindu, got converted to Christianity and married a Christian woman thereafter. Sanjeevi Reddiar was born to the couple as also other children. After the death of Muthu Reddiar, there was a deed of partition. The deed was executed between the heirs of Muthu Reddiar on August 29, 1935. The properties left by Muthu Reddiar were divided among the said heirs. The widow of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan Vs. S. Ayyathurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad82; (1979)1MLJ454
ORDER1. The petitioner-debtor in I. P. 1 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, is the revision petitioner. The respondents herein were arrayed as creditors in the said insolvency petition. The petitioner filed the petition under Ss. 10 and 13(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudging himself as an insolvent. The material averments made in the petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Thirumangalam; that he suffered heavy loss in the choir business which he carried on with his brothers; that he has got a one-fourth share in the property shown in Sch. B to the petition; that he is earning only Rs. 150 per month; that he is unable to pay his debts and that he should be adjudged an insolvent in the said circumstances. Respondents 1 and 3 contested the petition mainly on two grounds (I) that the District Munsif, Thirumangalam, has no jurisdiction to entertain the insolvency petition because the petitioner is residing ...
Tag this Judgment!N.V.P. Pandian Vs. M.M. Roy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad42
1. The Defendant in O. S. No. 1675 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,975/- with future interest and costs in the following circumstances.2. According to the respondent the appellant is a building contractor and was at the relevant time constructing house No. 35, Muthu Gramani Street, Mylapore, Madras-4. He used to apply for loans to the respondent for his construction work. In 1968, the respondent was making attempts to get a seat for her son in the Madras Medical College. The appellant promised to obtain a seat for the respondent's son in the Medical College if the respondent would lend him some money. Accordingly, the respondent paid Rs. 15,000/- in all to the appellant. However, her son could not get a seat in the Medical College. Since the appellant had obtained the money from the respondent on false representation he was bound to repay the same. On 8-1-1971 he also exe...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Vellore Electric C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Mad)206; [1979]119ITR523(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - The following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 55,703 and Rs. 30,104 contributed by it for the contingencies reserve for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectivel ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 98,676 and Rs. 18,735 transferred by it to the development reserve account and to the tariff and dividend control reserve account respectively for the assessment year 1969-70 and Rs. 68,288 transferred by it to the `development reserve account, for the assessment year 1970-7 ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80-I not only in respect of the busine...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Yesudasan Vs. A. Grant
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1978
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ152
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of esecution proceedings. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. The only point is whether the Court below was right in dismissing the plaintiff's application for execution of the decree as to costs on the ground that the execution petition is belated. The decree in question was a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The decree was passed on 7th September, 1962. Under the terms of the said decree costs were awarded in favour of the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 573.74.2. When appeal was taken by the petitioner against the preliminary decree it was dismissed on 14th October, 1970. The petitioner thereafter filed E. P. No. 85 of 1977 for executing the decree against the defendant for costs awarded under the preliminary decree. The objection put forward by the defendant was that the execution petition was barred be limitation since 12 years had expired from 7th September, 1962 which as pointed out earlier...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wheel and Rim Company of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR16(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us in respect of the assessment year 1969-70. The questions read as follows : '1. Whether the assessee was entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of wirings and fittings of electric machinery 2. Whether the manufacture of rims and wheels for cycles would fall under the head 'Cycle manufacture works' under item 8 of C of Part I of Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and hence the assessee should be allowed depreciation at 10% on the general machinery used therefor ?' 2. Having regard to the first question, what has to be considered is whether item (3)(b) of E of Part I of Appendix I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, applies or whether Item (3)(c) thereof applies. 3. As far as the second question is concerned, what has to be seen is whether the works of the assessee can be termed as cycle manufacture works under Item 8 of C of Part I of Appendix I. The Tribunal dealt with the matter in paragraphs 5 and 6 of its order. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. G. Shanmugam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR890(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. In relation to the assessment year 1965-66 the question has arisen whether a gift, said to arise from the transformation of an individual business to a partnership business, would be exempt from gift-tax under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the G.T. Act, 1958. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court and that question forms the subject matter of T.C. No. 3 of 1973 :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not liable to be assessed under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in respect of the gift of goodwill consequent on the formation of a partnership under the deed executed on April 3, 1962, on the ground that the said gift was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Act ?'2. Not satisfied with the above reference, the revenue sought a more specific question being referred to this court in relation to the same assessment for the same year and that has resulted in T.C. No. 4 of 1975 with the following question :'Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V. Thayarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: [1983]139ITR1072(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax wants the following questions to be directed for reference ;'(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that there is no provision in the Wealth-tax Act enabling the Department to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal questioning the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dropping the proceedings initiated by him under Section 35 of the said Act and that the appeal filed by the Department is incompetent ? (2) Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act could not be invoked to apply the amended provisions of Section 5(1)(viii) of the said Act on the ground that the said amended provisions of Section 5(1)(vii) involved a debatable question of law ?' 3. The AAC took certain proceedings for the purpose of rectification of the order which he had passed, in view of certain amendments to the W.T. Act. After giving notice to th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »