Chennai Court January 1979 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Misrimul Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR123(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the provisions of Section 67, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 8,416 cannot be included in the hands of assessee under Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment under consideration is for 1972-73. He was a partner in a firm called Messrs. Misrimul Bhawarilal,Kancheepuram. This partnership itself came into existence on a partial partition of the movables in the HUF of the assessee and his sons on 1st June, 1964. On the same day, a partnership deed was executed between the assessee and his three major sons to carry on the business of pawn broking. His three minor sons were admitted to the benefits of partnership. Each of the three minor sons was credited with a capital of Rs. 1,100. The capital amount was not...
Tag this Judgment!C. Muthu Bhattar Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ480
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. One Muthu Bhattar has filed this revision petition under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act in this judgment) questioning the validity of the order passed by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Madurai, as Land Tribunal constituted under the Act.1-A. On the basis of the return furnished by the petitioner herein under Section 8(1) of the Act, and on the materials collected through the field staff of the department, a draft statement containing the particulars of all lands held by him as 6th April, 1960 was prepared, and it was published in Supplement to Part III - No. 10 MM of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 14th March, 1973 as required in Section 10(1) of the Act. The draft statement was served on the petitioner on 22nd March, 1973. He filed a statement of objections to the draft statement on 19th April, 1974. The petitioner was heard in person ...
Tag this Judgment!Rathinam Pillai Vs. Gnanabaraman Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ191
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred against a common order made in C.M.A. Nos. 121 and 126 of 1974 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which are as follows:(1) Whether the respondent is entitled to possession by way of restitution without paying the amount which the appellant paid for setting aside the Court sale in respect of item 2.(2) Whether the appellant is entitled to deduct kist and Municipal taxes out of the income from items 1 and 2.The second defendant in O.S. No. 66 of 1948. filed a petition under Section 144(1) of Civil Procedure Code, for delivery of the property and for restitution. It appears that one Rathinam Pillai, who was the respondent in E.P. No. 247 of 1972 in O.S No. 66 of 1948 and who was the plaintiff in this suit, purchased the properties involved in these proceedings in Court auction held on 17th August, 1955, he being the decree holder in O.S. No. 66 of 1948. Two items are inv...
Tag this Judgment!i. Devarajan and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Fede ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR506(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These writ petitions raise certain common points and, therefore, they are taken together for consideration. W.P. No. 828 of 1977 has been filed by one Devarajan, a farmer in a village in Tirunel-veli District. He claims to be a member of the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society. The first respondent to the writ petition is the Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Federation Ltd., a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 53 of 1961, on 4th December, 1974, with the object of helping farmers particularly small and marginal farmers by providing them integrated credit and other services. The membership of the federation was open to all farmers' service co-operative societies, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu as well as any person of over 18 years of age. The total number of individual members was not to exceed 20. It is stated that the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Society is one of the co-operative societies, which are members o...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ146Mad
Mohan, J.1. An interesting question arises in this writ petition a to whether the messes run by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras petitioner herein, could be brought within the ambit of Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts arc as under:2. The petitioner, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, is a statutory body created by Central Act 59 of 1961. It is a corporation sole. Section 31 of the Central Act empowers the Central Government to establish a council. Section 27 of the Central Act authorises the council to frame statutes with the previous approval of the Visitor (President of India). In pursuance of such power, the council has framed statutes. Section 23 of the statutes provides as follows:23. Halls and Hostels.-(1) The institute shall be a residential institution and all students, research scholars and research fellows shall reside in the Halls of Residence and Hostels bu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Perfect Liners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: [1983]142ITR654(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to higher development rebate at 35% under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) ?' 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of purchasing rough castings and supplying the same to the manufacturers of pump-sets, tractors, etc., after machining and polishing them in its factory. It claimed beforethe ITO development rebate of Rs. 42,146 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 6,038 for the assessment year 1971-72, which are the years under reference, on the basis of allowance of 35% having to be made on the cost of machinery. This claim for allowance of 35% as development rebate was made on the ground that the assessee was a priority industry which came within the scope of the entries in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The assessee relied on item (9) read with it...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Wire Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR454(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that the unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate of the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, to the extent not absorbed in the hands of the partners should be given set off against the income of the assessee-firm in the assessment year 1970-71?'2. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of 12 partners. This is one of the those unfortunate cases where the facts themselves do not appear either in the orders of the authorities or in the statement of the case. However, we are making the best out of what is available and we are proceeding to answer the reference as best as possible.3. The assessee submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 5,96,362. This amount was arrived at after adjusting the losses of the previous years of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Indira
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Mad)76; [1979]119ITR837(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in including the sum of Rs. 6,943 paid by the assessee as per compromise decree in the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the assessee's case ?'2. By a settlement deed dated May 28, 1967, a house property bearing Nos. 2 and 3, Lakshmipuram Street, was gifted to the assessee by her father. In the document of gift, the property was valued at Rs. 6,000. During the financial year ended March 31, 1971, the assessee sold the said property for a sum of Rs. 30,000. In the income-tax assessment for the year 1971-72, the question arose whether there was any capital gains arising out of the sale of the property. The ITO took the cost of the acquisition of the property at Rs. 6,000 as shown in the g...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Vallippa Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ433
G. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned Land Tribunal confirming the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Ramanathapuram and dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner.2. The facts are : The estate called R.M.P.V. Estate owned by late Palaniappa Chettiar of Poolankuruchi had extensive lands in Minnamalaipatti and Melavanniaruppu villages. After the death of the original owner Palaniappa Chettiar in the year 1920, his descendants were enjoying the income derived from the estate according to their shares. Some of the descendants of late Palaniappa Chettiar formed a new firm called V.S.R.M., but the Authorised Officer held that the properties owned by the new firm as well as R.M.P.V. firm are joint family properties. Some lands owned by the said estate were sold to V.S.R.M. firm during the period between 6th April, 1960 and 2nd October, 1962. The partners of V.S.R.M. firm filed a joint statement before the Authorised Officer wherein...
Tag this Judgment!Neelavarna Iyer and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad31
ORDER1. One Thiruvenkatathammal , was possessed of certain in am villages as life estate holder which were taken aver under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. In respect of those inam villages, advance compensation had been deposited by the State Government under Section 41 of the Act with the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. On a claim made by the respondent who is the same in all these petitions, On amounts were paid out to him by the Tribunal after due enquiry under S, 53. The claim before the Tribunal by the respondent was that he is entitled to compensation on the basis of a settlement deed executed by the service inam holder, Thiruvenkatathammal.2. Thereafter disputes arose between the respondent -and the petitioner herein as to who is entitled to succeed to the estate held by Thiruvenkatathammal The petitioner claimed that under the Will of Thiruvenkatathammal, he is entitled to succeed to her estate and that the respondent cannot claim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »