Chennai Court December 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.
P.A. Kalaiyappan Vs. the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ473
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Board of Revenue dated 26th October, 1978 and to quash the same and to direct a no-objection certificate to be granted to the petitioner in respect of S. No. 176/1 and 2 of Nilamalagiamangalam Village, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.2. The petitioner applied for a no-objection certificate for locating a touring cinema in the site mentioned above by an application dated 10th May, 1978 received by the Collector on 1lth May, 1978. The petitioner had deposited the required fee in the treasury and complied with all the conditions for applying for a no-objection certificate. Since he is not the owner of the site, in column 13 of the application in Form A, he stated that he had taken the site on lease and enclosed two copies of unregistered lease deeds in respect of the property. The Collector returned the application with an endorsement on 18th May, 1978 th...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Associated Sales of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC401(Mad)
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. The assessee in this case purchased folded clips from unregistered persons and those folded clips were used in the manufacture of office files. The question for consideration is whether the assessee was liable to pay tax on the purchase turnover under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Because the assessee purchased folded clips from unregistered persons, the purchase was not liable to tax. The only other point is whether the case can be brought under the scope of Section 7-A of the Act. One of the requirements of Section 7-A is that the goods so purchased should be consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise. No doubt in this case office files were manufactured by the dealer. But in that manufacture, the folded clips were not consumed but were merely used or utilised. The language used in the section is 'consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods' and not 'uses such goods in the manufacture of other goods'. Co...
Nanjappa Chetty Vs. Manikkam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ285
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The revision petition is filed against the order in C.M.A. No. 46 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Krishnagiri C.M.A. No. 46 of 1978 was filed against an order in unnumbered application in R.E.P. 19 of 1978 in O.S. No. 1225 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif of Krishna-giri. It was claimed by the debtor that he is entitled to the benefits under Section 15 of Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 1978 for scaling down the decree debt. The District Munsif held that since the debt has already been scaled down under Act IV of 1938 in I, A. No. 99 of 1975, the judgment-debtor-cannot again seek for scaling down of the debt in view of the proviso to Section 6 of Ordinance 5 of 1978. The said Ordinance has been subsequently replaced by Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1978 which has also been repealed and as on date. Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1979 is in force. The lower appellate Court also held that when the debt had been already scaled down under Act IV of 1938, in vi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Kannappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)311; [1981]132ITR611(Mad)
1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the share income of Rs. 11,498 received from the firm of Messrs. Sri Krishna Corporation, Madurai, as not belonging to the assessee ? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the share in the partnership firm can be impressed with the character of the joint family property even though by such declaration the family would have to bear the risk and liability of the partnership business, is sustainable in law ' 2. The assessee, admittedly, made a declaration on April 1, 1968, impressing his share in the firm of M/s. Sri Krishna Corporation with the character of joint family property. Before the Tribunal, the question that was raised by the department was that the assessee had no right ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.B. Manickam Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: [1981]128ITR598(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift tax Act ?' 2. The assessment year under consideration is 1966-67. The gift-tax assessment was made in the status of 'individual ', though the assessee claimed the status of HUF. Before the GTO, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(viii) of the G.T. Act in respect of the gift made by K. V. Manickam Gupta in favour of his wife. The GTO rejected, this claim. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC before whom one of the questions raised was whether the status was properly taken as an 'individual'. The AAC held that the proper status for assessment was HUF. He further held that in order to claim exemption under Section 5(1)(viii), the gift should have been made by the assessee to his wi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Salem Co-operative Cent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: (1981)17CTR(Mad)306; [1981]132ITR612(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19 being the interest received on the deposit made with the electricity company, is a business receipt and, accordingly, deleting the additional surcharge of Rs. 81,920 charged for the assessment year 1963-64 ?'The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking. We are concerned with the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant previous year ending on 3 June 30, 1962. The total income of the assessee was computed as under :Rs.Rs.1. Interest on securities21,967 Less: Property loss6,073 15,8942. Business income 14,96,6783. Other sources 29,260 Rs. 15,41,832Under the head 'Other sources' was included a sum of Rs. 19, being the interest from the Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company. The assessee had made...
Parrys Confectionery Ltd. Vs. the Government of India (C.E. Revision) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS226D
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are, among other things, manufacturers of confectionery items in their factory situated at Nellikuppam South Arcot District, Tamil Nadu. They held a Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of general confectionery items dutied under item 1-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In their application for Central Excise Licence made under Rule 173(6) of the Central Excise Rules, they have mentioned 'Lozenges' as one of the items manufactured by the petitioners. These 'Lozenges' prepared by the petitioners were being assessed to the Central Excise duty as if they fall under item 1-A of the Schedule to the Act. The petitioners state that they have wrongly included in their application and were also paying mistakenly duty on Lozenges as if these Lozenges are also covered under item 1-A (1) of the Schedule. When the mistake was detected, they filed a petition on 20-10-1973 to the Assistant...
Dr. O.C. Mohamed Hashim Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ235
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is the trustee and Muthavalli of Osmania Mosque, Chintadripet which, according to the petitioner, was built hundred years ago by his grand-father late Tanjore Mohammed Usman Sahib. It appears there are four shops in the front portion of the mosque and it is stated in the affidavit that the income from which was intended for and utilised by the petitioner solely for the maintenance of the mosque. The founder also seems to have purchased two other properties, namely, Nos. 21 and 22, Agraharam Street, Chintadripet and at present there are about nine shops in those two properties. The affidavit of the petitioner further states that the founder utilised a portion of the income from these two properties whenever necessary for the expenses of the mosque but the bulk of the income therefrom was being utilised for his family and for distribution among the members of the founder's family called the beneficiaries. On these allegations, the contention of the ...
Tottal Monthemmal Naidu Vs. Kottikkollan Edavalath Nabeesa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ110
V. Ratnam, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 26 of 1971, District Munsif's Court, Mahe, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The first respondent herein instituted a suit in ejectment against the petitioner and the second respondent herein in respect of a non-residential building situate at Mane, after giving a notice of termination of tenancy. It was pleaded that the tenant-petitioner herein had committed wilful default in the payment of rents and also sublet the premises without obtaining her consent. The trial Court decreed the suit on 31st May, 1972, and an appeal against that, at the instance of the petitioner, proved unsuccessful on 17th November, 1973. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to this Court in--Tottal Monthemmal Naida v. Smt. Kottikollam Edavalath Nabeesa S.A. No. 1389 of 1974, which was disposed of on 7th November, 1977. In the course of the second appeal, a contention was put forth on behalf of the petitioner that consequent to the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›