Chennai Court March 1978 Judgments
S. Nesamony Nadar Vs. Nidalam Government High School, Improvement Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad383
ORDERSuryamurthy, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, dismissing A. S. No. 92 of 1972, preferred against the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram, who decreed O. S. No. 450 of 1969 on the file of his court, instituted by the respondent Committee for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 500.2. The plaintiff is one A. G. Bhaskaran Nair who claims to be the President of the Nidalam Government High School Improvement Committee, and claims to represent the said Committee. A loan of Rs. 500 was given by the said Committee to the revision-petitioner herein for putting up a thatched roof. This amount was to be repaid by the revision petitioner on receipt of the same from the Government grant. The fact that such an amount was paid to him is not denied by the revision petitioner. The fact that he has been subsequently reimbursed by the Government which gave a grant also has not been disputed by him. His con-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Thiagarajan (Decd.), by Lrs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR115(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. The following two questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the losses incurred by the assessee in the assessment years 1963-64 to 1966-67 in the maintenance of horses and in horse racing are referable to the head 'Other sources' and that these should be set off against income from other heads of income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus from the sale of plots of land arising in the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 was not includible in the income as profits from an adventure in the nature of trade or any other kind of business ' 2. The assessee was assessed as an individual and his source of income over the years included salary, income from property, etc. He owns a bangalow at Vepery, Madras, and resides therein. He also owns ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gordhandas Moolchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR893(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 72,220 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?' 2. For the assessment year 1964-65, for which the previous year ended on July 1, 1963, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 2,01,000. The assessee's business was banking and money-lending. He later filed a revised return showing an income of Rs. 2,45,000. The ITO made the assessment on a total sum of Rs. 2,73,566 and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of the income. The total income included a sum of Rs. 72,220. It would appear that as per the Finance Act, 1965, the assessee made a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 3,85,000. But the ITO found another sum of Rs. 2,15,000 as having been advanced to parties outside the account. From this total of Rs. 6,00,000, the ITO, while making assessment orders for the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarakadoss Goverdhandoss and Sow. Gangabai Memorial Trust, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad11
1. The unsuccessful landlord under the Tamil Nadu Act (18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein, is the tenant under the Act. Eviction of the tenant was sought by the landlord under S. 10(3)(b) of the Act in H. R. C. No. 583 of 1970, on the file of the VI Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras (Rent controller). On contest, the Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction. It must be pointed and ordered eviction. It must be pointed out that the landlord filed similar petitions against other tenants also and all the petitions were considered and disposed of by the Rent Controller by a common order dated 21-11-1972. The tenant herein and as well as the other tenants filed appeals before the appellate authority, under the Act, viz, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who heard and disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment dated 26-4-1973. The appellate authority mooted out the following points for con...
Tag this Judgment!Aruppukottai Sri Jaya Vilas (P.) Ltd. Vs. K.N. Karuppiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad384
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 380 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif of Sattur, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. That suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,405 being the damages sustained by the plaintiff on account of the accident on 18-7-1971, involving the bus owned by the plaintiff and the lorry owned by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry owned by the first respondent. The second defendant is the insurance company with which the lorry belonging to the first defendant was insured. It seems that summons could not be served on the first defendant in spite of the fact that, batta was paid thrice and there was a failure on the part of the plaintiff to apply for substituted service of the summons on the first defendant. This necess...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vaidyanathaswami Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR369(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee was plying two route buses on the routes Kangeyanalloor to Krisharasampattu and Minnal Railway Station to Tiruttani. He had also a spare bus. On June 1, 1966, he sold these buses along with the route permits. The sale itself is evidenced by a document, and it is not in dispute that in the said document, separate sale considerations for the buses and the value of the rights to ply in the respective routes were given. The value of the route permits in respect of the route, Kangeyanalloor to Krisharasampattu was Rs. 5,000 and Minnal Railway Station to Tiruttani was Rs. 17,500, thus making a total of Rs. 22,500. This amount of Rs. 22,500 was sought to be brought to tax as capital gain in respect of the assessment year 1967-68. The contention of the assessee was that the route permit is not property and in any case since there was no cost of acquisition, the amount realised by the sale of it could not be subjected to tax as capital gains. Both these contentions ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Viswanathan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR244(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The question referred to us in respect of the assessment year 1966-67 reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of the provisions of Section 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, had not been satisfied and consequently the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid provisions for the assessment year 1966-67?'2. The assessee had purchased a residential building. This was outstanding with the tenant and it was recovered by the assessee on January 5, 1964. He resided in that building from January 16, 1964. The building was sold on June 16, 1965. The question referred has to be answered inthe light of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, the relevant part of which we shall extract:'54. Where a capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset to which the provisions of Section 53 are not applicable, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto the income of ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Gandhisan Vs. Ayyasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ270
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 of 1978 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot, is the appellant. The defendant in the action (respondent herein) is the owner of the plaint schedule property which is of the extent of 9 acres and 51 cents of dry land with a house therein. On 9th November, 1972, the defendant executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to sell the property to him for a sum of Rs. 14,000. On the date of Exhibit A-1 he received from the plaintiff an advance of Rs. 1,000. The stipulation in the agreement was that the defendant should execute the sale deed within three months from the date of Exhibit A-1 on receipt of Rs. 13,000 and if he committed a breach of the agreement, he should pay the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 as damages. Similarly, if the plaintiff failed to take the sale deed on payment of Rs. 13,000 he had to pay the defendant Rs. 3,000 by way of damages. The defendant did not comply with the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Mill Stores Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT9(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment and it is enough to note the facts in W.P. No. 6155 of 1972 alone, since the issue involved is the same excepting that two different petitioners have approached this court.2. The petitioner made an import of pillow blocks from the United Kingdom under a relevant bill of entry. The imported pillow blocks are of Fafnir make. It consists of a housing and a bearing. These blocks are complete with integral bearing which are inseparable. The appraising department of the Madras Customs classified the imported goods under item 72 (35) of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff) which reads as 'ball bearings of all kinds not exceeding 51 millimetres bore diameter adopted for use as parts and accessories of motor vehicles (other than motor cycles and motor scooters) and parts thereof, not otherwise specified. The contention of the petitioner was that it should be assessed u...
Tag this Judgment!Mill Stores Private Limited and Bhandari Agencies Vs. the Govt. of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS186D
ORDERMohan, J.1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Thursday the Second and Friday the Tenth days of February 1978 upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 25.9.75 and 7.10.75 respectively and made herein, and the Counter affidavits filed herein, and the records relating to the order No. 4302/74 and 4301/74 dated 31.8.74 in C3/744/73 dated 12.10.73 and C3/745/73 dated 20.10.73 and in C. 49/97/73 IV dated 8.4.73 and S/S. 49/36/73 Ap. dated 9.3.73 on the file of the respondent No. 1,2 and 3 respectively comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. B. R, Dolia of M/s. Aiyar and Dolia and S. Sunder Advocates for the petitioner, in each of the petitions and of Mr. T. Chengalvarayan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »