Chennai Court June 1978 Judgments
Blaze and Central (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR33(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to us for our decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the applicant herein : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was not deductible as an allowable expenditure ' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of arranging exhibition of advertisement and film shorts in the licensed public cinema theatres in the four southern States of Madras, Andhra, Kerala and Mysore. One M/s. Saraswathi Publicities, Madras, was also carrying on the business of exhibition of film shorts on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Lintas Ltd. for the said four southern States. The assessee felt that it would be commercially profitable if it could also carry on the business of exhibition of film shorts on behalf of M/s. Hindust...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Rm. Pl. Subramania Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR925(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 16,363should be allowed as a deduction as bad debt , under Section 36(2) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee would be entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 16,363 as bad debt could be regarded as reasonable on the materials available on record ?' 2. The respondent-assessee along with one S. M. Palaniappan carried on a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Union Leather Company in hides and skins. One Hussunudhin, a Delhi merchant, was one of the constituents of the partnership firm. He had a running account with the firm and a sum of Rs. 17,134 was due from him to the firm as on December 31, 1962. During the year en...
Tag this Judgment!Naziruddeen Vs. P.A. Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad410
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The second respondent in . O. P. No. 78 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein filed the original petition under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. to permit him to file the suit as an indigent person. In the suit, the first respondent prayed for a declaration that he has won the first prize of Rs. 27,00,000 on the lottery ticket issued by the Director of State lottery, U. P. (Lucknow) in the draw held on 17-3-1977, by the State of Uttar Pradesh by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Lucknow U. P. and for a decree directing the Director of State Lottery as well as the State Government to pay the sum to him. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the prayer of the first respondent herein by contending that the first respondent is in possession of sufficient means to pay the Court fees due on the plaint and that the first respondent has got lands, houses, pumpsets, rice mill and o...
Tag this Judgment!Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Chinnaswami Mudaliar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad21
ORDER1. The petitioner-defendant is admittedly a firm carrying on business in Bombay. The respondent-firm entrusted textile goods to the defendant-carriers, and such entrustment is evidenced by Exs. A.1 and A.2. The respondent claimed that the goods, whose value is about Rs. 4464-50, were transported belatedly by the petitioner which occasioned loss of the goods, and therefore, he instituted the present action against the petitioner for recovery of the values of such textile goods handed over to the petitioner for carriage. The petitioner pleaded, inter alia, that the goods were lost due to fire in transit and contended particularly that the court at Erode did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or try it in view of the specific clause in the contract of affreightment as disclosed in Exs. A.1 and A.2. The material clause, which is Cl. 17 therein runs as follows-'The contract shall be deemed to have been entered into and made with the administration and head office of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jayalakshmi and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR955(Mad)
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.Crl. A. No. 79/1976 :1. This is an appeal filed by the Union of India represented by the 2nd Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Salem, against the judgment in C.C. No. 712 of 1973 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Salem, for enhancement of the sentence.2. Accused 1 is a company known as M/s. Jayalakshmi and company. Accused 2 to 8 are partners of which accused 2 and 3 are managing partners of the said company. The 9th accused is the accountant of the firm.3. The second ITO, Circle-2, Salem, filed a complaint against the accused under Sections 120-B, 193 and 196 read with Section 109 of the IPCand Section 277 and Section 278 of the I.T. Act, 1961, alleging that accused 2 to 9 conspired together to fabricate the day book and ledger of accused 1 with a view to suppress genuine evidence in the course of the income-tax proceedings. The ITO also contended that accused 2 to 9 fabricated documents and used them as genuine documents and gave false state...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Abbas Brothers and ors. Vs. Chethandas Fathechand and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad272
1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 2882 of 1971 in the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 17500 due under three promissory notes, two of which for Rs. 4000 each, were executed on 11-1-1969 and the third for Rs. 3500 on 14-1-1969. The promissory notes carried interest at 24 per cent per annum. They were executed by one Mallik on behalf of the first defendant. One Moshin Bhai has signed the promissory note as a joint executant and according note as a joint executant and according to the plaintiff he was a partner in the second defendant firm and had executed the three promissory notes only as such partner so that the second defendant firm, and the partners thereof, defendants 3 and 4, are jointly and severally liable for the debt.2. The first defendant is a proprietary concern of one Khatija Bee. She filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff had advanced only Rs. 7000 in all, that a sum of Rs. 6000 had been paid back an...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Abbas Brothers and ors. Vs. Seth Chethandas Fathechand and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ280
V. Sethuraman, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 2882 of 1971 in the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the 3uit for recovery of Rs. 17,500 due under three promissory notes, two of which for Rs. 4,000 each, were executed on 11th January, 1969, and the third for Rs. 3,500 on 24th January, 1959. The promissory notes carried interest at 24 per cent per annum. They were executed by one Mallik on behalf of the first defendant. One Moshin Bhai has signed the promissory note as a joint executant and according to the plaintiff he was a partner in the second defendant-firm and had executed the three promissory notes only as such partner so that the second defendant firm, and the partners thereof, defendants 3 and 4, are jointly and severally liable for the debt.2. The first defendant is a proprietary concern of one Khatija Bee. She filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff had advanced only Rs. 7,000 in each, that a sum of Rs. 6,000 had been paid back...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. V.K. Bhaskaran Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR873(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 269G of the I.T. Act. Under the Act a new Chap. XXA has been introduced, which provides for acquisition of immovable property in certain cases of transfers to counteract evasion of tax. This was inserted by the Amending Act of 1972. Under Section 269C power is vested in the competent authority who is the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, so nominated under the main Act, who, if he has reason to believe that in the case of transfer of immovable property there has been a suppression of the real price and that the apparent price reflected in the instrument of transfer is less than the fair market value of the property, and, if he is also of the view that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of facilitating reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pa...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Adam and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC508(Mad)
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. In the exercise of its powers as the statutory authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the assessing authority was not satisfied with the returns furnished by the assessee-respondent and had to assess the taxable turnover on the basis of best judgment. This resulted in the assessing officer assessing the respondent to a taxable turnover of Rs. 7,19,237.11. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in suo motu revision, while accepting the exercise of the best judgment assessment of the assessing authority, thought that this was a fit case in which penalty ought to have been levied under Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, in exercise of such power supposed to have been vested in him and on the supposition that there was 'wilful suppression' of sales turnover, inflicted a penalty of Rs. 2,061 being the equivalent of the tax due on the 'suppressed turnover' of Rs. 58,901.75 for such wilful non-disclosure. It may be stated at once that the...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Aysa Nachial and ors. Vs. Vembu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ288
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioners in O.P. No. 22 of 1972 on the file of the Revenue Gourt, Karaikkal, are the revision petitioners. The respondent therein, is the respondent herein. In execution of an order of eviction obtained in O.P. No. 22 of 1972, the, petitioners sought for delivery of possession of the property in question. Admittedly, there was an obstruction by one Somu Piliai, son of Vuithilingam Pillai and this obstruction was notified to the Court below. Instead of taking proceedings for removal of obstruction, the petitioners herein wanted to prosecute the execution petition. The respondent raised a contention and it has been countenanced by the Court below that when no proceedings have been taken for removal of obstruction, the execution petition is incompetent and it cannot be prosecuted. This contention of the respondent as stated above has been accepted by the Court below and the execution petition has been dismissed. As against the order of the Court below the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »