Chennai Court January 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohan Babu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1209
ORDERSuryamurthy, J.1. This is a criminal revision case against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1976 on the file of his Court and confirming the order of confiscation of the lorry, M D E 8649, passed by the District Collector of Chingleput.2. On 29-9-1975 at about 1.30 p.m.; the Tahsildar of Ponneri noticed the lorry going in the direction of Madras from Ponneri Taluk, at Irulipattu village. Suspecting that there may be illicit transport of paddy by the said lorry (M. D. E 8649) the Tahsildar stopped the lorry near the Solavaram Panchayat Union Office and checked the lorry. He found 75 bags of paddy being transported in the lorry. The driver did not produce any valid permit or no objection certificate entitling him to carry the paddy in the lorry. The log books did not contain any entry. He seized the lorry and the paddy bags. Only the driver was present at the time of the seizure. Since no permit or no objection certificate...
K.J. Ramamoorthi and anr. Vs. O.T. Ramamurthy Alias Ramakrishnan and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ18
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 26th September, 1975 staying the trial of O.S. No. 81 of 1974 under Act X of 1975.In paragraph 5 of the order, the learned Judge says :According to the petitioners they are agriculturists entitled to the benefit of Act X of 1975. The petitioners have produced kist receipts to show payment of kist in the name of the second respondents for fasli 1382. In I.A. No. 338 of 1975 the petitioners have produced copies of No. 2 account and No. 10 (i) account to show that the petitioners own lands and they are agriculturists. The respondents have not proved that the petitioners are paying income-tax or agricultural income-tax or sales-tax. As the petitioners own agricultural lands they are agriculturists and so they are entitled to the benefit of Act X of 1975.' Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenges this conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge and contends that...
Neelavarma Iyer (Died) and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ249
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. One Thirnvenkadathammal was possessed of certain inam villages as life estate holder which were taken over 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, the amounts were paid out to him by the Tribunal after due enquiry, under Section 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, Thiruvenkadathammal.2. Thereafter disputes arose between the respondent and the petitioner herein as to who is entitled to succeed to the estate held by Thiruvenkadathammal. The petitioner claimed that under the will of Thiruvenkadathammal he is entitled to succeed to her estate and that the res...
C.G. Ramanathan Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad14
1. The owner of premises No. 72, Archbishop Mathias Street, Madras, aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960), who fixed the annual value of the premises at Rs. 10920 has filed this civil revision petition. The main contention before me is that even though the property would fetch a rent of Rs. 900 per month and an additional Income of Rs. 400 per month towards amenities provided in the premises earlier to 31-3-1973, yet after 31-3-1973, to wit, in June 1973, the premises were let out to Parry and, Co, for occupation by one of its officers, on a rent of Rs. 600 per month and an additional charge of Rs. 200 per month for amenities. The main contention of Mr. Gopinath learned counsel for the petitioner is that as there Is proof of payment of such rent in the form of rent receipts and a lease deed inter se between the landlord and the tenant, there is no possibility of any...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. V. Lalithamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR721(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference has been made under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, raising the following two questions : '(1) 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. 35,000 received from the Life Insurance Corporation is not includible in terms of Section 14 of the Estate Duty Act and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment made by the Life Insurance Corporation was only ex gratia and not with reference to the insurance policy of the deceased ?' 2. The estate duty assessment came to be done on the-death of one L. Viswanathan, who was a planter and businessman. He had taken out a policy of life insurance for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 4th October, 1954, withthe Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company. Subsequently, he submitted a proposal fo...
C.G. Ramanathan Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ421
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The owner of premises No. 72, Archbishop Mathias Street, Madras, aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rant Control) Act, 1960), who fixed the annual value of the premises at Rs. 10,920 has filed this civil revision petition. The main contention before me is that, even though the property would fetch a rent of Rs. 900 per month and an additional income of Rs. 400 per month toward amenities provided in the premises earlier to 31st March, 1973 yet after 31st March, 1973, to wit, in June, 1973, the premises were let out to Parry and Company for occupation by one of its officers, on a rent of Rs. 600 per month and an additional charge of Rs. 200 per month for amenities. The main contention of Mr. Gopinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that as there is proof of payment of such rent in the form of rent receipts and a lease deed inter se between the landlord a...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)240; [1980]123ITR790(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. T.C. No. 67 of 1975 and T.C. No. 71 of 1977 arise out of the same order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1965-66.2. Originally three questions of law had been raised and only two of them were considered by the Tribunal to arise out of the Tribunal's order and, therefore, the Tribunal referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it has been rightly held that in computing the admissible deduction under Section 37(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the interest on securities should also be considered as business income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the entertainment expenditure to be considered for application of Section 37(2) should only be that after deduction of the amount allowable under Section 20 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. As the Tribunal had not referred the other question, the Addl. Commission...
K. Balasubramania Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR504(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gains arising to the assessee by the transfer of the route permits held by her could be brought to tax under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67?'2. The assessee is a HUF carrying on the business of bus transport. During the accounting year ending with December 31, 1965, relevant for the assessment year 1966-67, six buses were sold. The written down value of these buses as on January 1, 1965, was Rs. 68,329. The buses were sold for Rs. 1,85,000. The assessee had been allowed a depreciation of Rs. 45,268 in respect of these buses. The ITO computed the profit assessable under Section 41(2) at Rs. 45,268 which represents the depreciation which had been allowed for the earlier years and which had been recouped by the sale. The ITO further held that t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Chelladurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR108(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 8 of 1973, the Tribunal has referred the following questions : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction in law to adjudicate upon the merits of the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and reduce the quantum while disposing of the miscellaneous application filed by the department for the only purpose of rectifying the mistake of law committed in the appeal order dated January 5, 1968 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal having concluded in the appeal order dated January 5, 1968, that on merits the levy of penalty was justified was right in reopening that issue while rectifying the mistake of law based on the department's miscellaneous application ?' 2. The assessee is a proprietor of a Tamil magazine and a press. For the assessment year 1959-60, he filed a return some time prior to January 9, 1962. On January 9, 1962, as against a return of income of Rs. 17,606, he w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ct. Muthiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR104(Mad)
Sethuraman. J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the payment of Rs. 8,564 being the assessee's 50% of arrears of urban land tax relating to the earlier years, would also fall under Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the same will, therefore, be eligible for deduction in computing the assessee's income from property ?' 2. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 3,19,310. He made a claim for allowance of Rs. 8,564 which represented the urban land tax paid by him in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. The AAC was of the view that the urban land tax related to previous years prior to the year under consideration and that it could not be allowed as deduc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »