Chennai Court October 1979 Judgments
Jaya Hills Produce Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC384(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29th November, 1975. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,38,360.72 for the assessment year 1964-65 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in the annual return submitted on 31st May, 1965. There was an inspection of the assessee's business place on 11th September, 1964, when nine bills disclosing sales to the extent of Rs. 97,547.23 were recovered. This turnover was not disclosed in the return. When the assessee's accounts were checked, the turnover was found to be Rs. 6,35,907.95, which included the sum of Rs. 97,547.23. The assessing officer found that there were other suppressions and irregularities and he therefore rejected the returns as well as the accounts. He took the turnover as per the books and added Rs. 31,795.40, which represented 5 per cent of the turnover, as per the accounts, for 'probable suppression' and made a best judgment assessment under Se...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mcdowell and Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC85(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two revision petitions have been filed against a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 22nd September, 1975. The assessee is primarily a distributor of liquor for United Breweries Ltd. It has been customary for the bills issued by the principals (United Breweries) to the assessee to show the price, tax thereon and the deposit separately. The assessee also similarly charged its customers. The rate of deposit at which the assessee is charged by his principal and the rate at which the assessee charged its customers- are the same. The same procedure has been followed for a long number of years. From time to time, there has been an increase in the rates of deposits due to extreme shortage of empty bottles. In the circular dated 18th August, 1971, the following passage occurs:1. Price : United Breweries Export Rs. 22.15 per dozen qts. f. o. r. Bangalore....2. Empty bottles deposit of Rs. 4.80 per dozen and sales tax will be extra....Empty bott...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Padayachi Vs. Muthukumaraswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ259
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in the civil revision petition is whether the application for delivery of possession filed by the petitioner is in time.2. The respondent herein admittedly had borrowed moneys from E. 2616, T. Palayam Rural Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society. Inasmuch as the amounts were not paid, proceedings were initiated against the respondent and an award in No. 265 of 1969-70 and 1721 of 1969-70 was made. Execution proceedings were resorted to as the amounts remained unpaid. It is thereafter the properties of the respondent were brought to sale for the realisation of the moneys due from him. The sale was conducted by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Execution and Liquidation) and Sale Officer, Cuddalore, on 5th August, 1972 and the sale was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for the highest bid of Rs. 3,800. On 6th February, 1973, by his proceedings, the Joint Registrar Chief Executive Officer and Registrar of the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Narayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)30; [1981]132ITR355(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only 1/7th of the income from the firm of M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation, Madras, should be assessed in the assessee's hands ?'2. The assessee is the widow of one Shri S. Narayan who died on November 16, 1968. He was a partner of the firm, M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation, with a share worth Rs. 40,000 therein. With effect from November 17, 1968, i.e., the day after he died, the partnership was reconstituted taking the assessee as a partner in his place. The Tribunal has stated: 'It appears that the capital originally contributed by Shri Narayan was transferred to the credit of the assessee and she continued to have the same share in the firm.' The Tribunal has not referred to, nor has it annexed, any ac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Mad)383; [1980]124ITR117(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a common reference, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, of questions referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. We shall first deal with the question referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, which runs as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of interest on mortgage once under the head ' Property ' and again under the head ' Business ' for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 ?'2. The assessee is running a well known newspaper in English, 'The Indian Express ', and other vernacular dailies and periodicals having its headquarters at Madras and branches at Bombay, Delhi and Madurai. It owns a building called ' Bosotto Building ' in Madras and another building called ' Newspaper House ' in Bombay. There was an equitable mortgage of these ...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ16Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The second respondent herein was working under the petitioner-management as a foreman (carpentry) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per month with effect from 12-2-1972 in the construction of reactor and turbine buildings at Kalpakkam in the Madras Automic Project, Unit I. The management, however, terminated the services of the second respondent by an order dated 8-4-1974 on the ground that his services arc no longer required. On a dispute having been raised by the second respondent on his non-employment, that dispute was referred to the Labour Court, the first respondent herein by the Government. The Labour Court, after a due enquiry, held that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and that, therefore, he must be reinstated in service with back wages and other attendant benefits, if any. The management prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said award passed by the Labour Court in this writ petition mainly on two grounds: (1)...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Venkatachary Vs. M.N. Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ243
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, dated 21st December, 1978, allowing H.R.A. No. 319 of 1978 filed by the respondent herein against the order of the Rent Controller, dated 31st March, 1978 made in M.P. No. 166 of 1978.2. An ex parte order of eviction was passed! against the respondent herein by the Rent Controller on 12th September, 1975. On 3rd November, 1977, the respondent herein filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. In that petition, he stated that on 11th September, 1975 an agreement was entered into between him and the petitioner herein, under which he agreed to pay an enhanced rent and pay the arrears of rents and the petitioner in his turn agreed to withdraw the eviction petition, and that was the reason why he did not appear in the rent control petition, and he learnt only on 10th October, 1977 that contrary to the undertaking given by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!S.U.S. Davey and Sons Vs. Liberty Dry Cleaners, Under the Name Board ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ284
S. Mohan, J.1. Throughout the C.R.P., the parties will be referred to as Landlords and Tenants. The landlords (S.U.S. Davey & Sons) are a registered partnership firm carrying on business as opticians at No. 173, Broadway, Madras-1. The partners of the firm are (1) Lalitha Ben Davey, (2) Lakshmi Shanker Davey, (3) Ambalal Davey, (4) Batilal Davey and (5) Harihar Davey. They are represented by one of the partners, Harihar Davey. They are the owners of the house and ground bearing Door No. 57, Sir Theagaraya Road, Theagarayanagar, Madras-17. The property came to be purchased in an auction sale held by one of the creditors of the previous owner on 10th May, 1973. The tenants were in occupation of a portion of the said premises consisting of a verandah and two rooms in the front and portion had been let out and used for non-residential purpose, namely, running a show-room for Dry Cleaners' business. The rent was Rs. 200/- per mensem. Since the landlords intend to open a branch of their opti...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. Rangaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ339
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner, in this Civil Revision Petition, is the landlady, of a piece of land in Karur town. The respondent was a tenant under her. She filed a suit in ejectment against the respondent after giving him a notice of termination of tenancy. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-tenant filed a petition under Section 9(i)(ii) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, under which he prayed that the Court may pass an order directing the landlady to sell the land to him. There was some controversy before the Court as to whether the superstructure was or was not constructed by the respondent/tenant. But, the trial Court held that there was no evidence at all that it was the landlady who built up the superstructure and on the basis of the evidence, it could fairly be inferred that the superstructure was put up only by the respondent. There were, however, other objections put forward by the landlady to the application filed by the tenant under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Kaithari Javuli Urpathiyalargal Sangam Ltd. and anr. Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC473(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. T.C. No. 84 of 1976 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 29th November. 1975. The assessee had registered itself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the year 1969-70 the assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 4,34,283.92 and claimed exemption on the entire turnover on the ground that it acted only as an agent in dealing with the goods. The assessing officer did not accept this plea and finally determined the total and taxable turnovers at Rs. 4,34,283.92 and Rs. 1,28,767.53 respectively. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended that it acted only as an agent of its members collectively, procuring their respective quota of allotment of dyes and art silk yarn required by them and that its transactions are not liable to tax. In this connection, it relied on a decision of this Court in National Chamber of Comm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »