Chennai Court February 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR451(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, the following question has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 1,93,509 and Rs. 1,08,302 paid in excess by the assessee to the Italian company while honouring the bills of exchange drawn in connection with purchase of the machinery by the assessee, due to fluctuation in exchange rate, during the accounting years ending with December 31, 1962, and December 31, 1964, are allowable as revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66, respectively ' 2. The assessee is a public limited company, carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of staple fibre, rayon yarn, etc. It has entered into an agreement with M/s. Italiviscosa Eastern Trading S. P. A. (hereinafter referred to as ' the Italian company ') on December 3, 1958, for purchase of machinery of the total value of 11,397,000 (sic) working out to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Trustees of the Estate of V.R. Chetty a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR329(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act of 1957, the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1958-59 and 1960-61 to 1967-68, on the assessee, namely, the trustee of the estate of V. R. Chetty and Brothers, should be made under Section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 '2. One Vitta Rangiah Chetty owned certain properties acquired by him under a deed executed in his favour by his adoptive father. Vitta Rangiah Chetty executed a trust deed on August 15, 1931, in respect of some of the properties that belonged to him. At that time he had two sons, Vitta Radha Krishna Chetty and Vitta Gopala Krishna Chetty then aged 2 years and 3 months respectively. Under the aforesaid deed, the official trustee of Madras was appointed trustee of the properties. He was to hold them ' in trust for the benefit and use of Radhakrishna Chetty and Gopalakrishna Chetty and al...
Tag this Judgment!R. Maria Thangam Vs. U. Murugan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ29Mad
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order made by the Labour Court, Madurai in Claim Petition No. 117 of 1971 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)2. The case of the claimants-workmen was (hey were in the service of the writ petitioner--Saw Mill for a period ranging from 4 to 6 years and all of a sudden they were refused. employment with effect from 5.10.1970. It is further stated that when their union issued a notice to the writ petitioner seeking re-employment, it was informed that the Saw Mill had been closed. In view of the above, the workmen claimed closure compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for every year of service and also a month's salary in lieu of a month's notice of the closure of the mill leave wages for the respective period of their service including wages for national holidays and festival holidays for which leave was not granted to them and bonus at the rate of Rs. 40 per year for every ye...
Tag this Judgment!P.F. George Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ356
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was originally recruited as Agricultural Extension Officer in the Agriculture Department at Thiruthuraipoondi. He was working there from 7th July, 1955 to 31st December, 1957. During that period, there was a defalcation of the Government money to the tune of Rs. 44,877-89 by two depot clerks, Arputharaj and Ponnuswami. This defalcation was detected only in the year 1957 during the course of an internal audit of the Block Development Office and also by a further audit for the entire period from 1954 to 1957. For the said defalcation, the said two clerks were suspended from service and ultimately criminal proceedings were initiated against them. However, the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal. Thereafter a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 6th October, 1958, by the Collector containing 13 charges. The substance of these charges is that the petitioner had been negligent in supervising the said two clerks and that had resulted in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Prabha P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)269; [1980]123ITR760(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has 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, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the extra printing charges paid by the assessee to M/s. Indian Express Private Ltd, of Rs. 1,27,245 is an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of the estimated gratuity payable to non-working journalists if it is established that the provision for payment of gratuity is based on legal and scientific basis?' 2. We shall consider the first question first, and take up the second question later, The assessee was printing the Vijayawada edition of the dailynewspaper 'Indian Express' and its Sunday Edition, for Indian Express (Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Arti Goenka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)264; [1980]121ITR632(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The following questions have been referred to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal that the ' loose diamonds ' owned by the assessee are exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the loose diamonds are articles intended for the personal use of the assessee? ' 2. The assessee is a lady who submitted returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 under the W.T. Act. The value of the jewellery shown in the wealth-tax returns for the three assessment years under reference and the value of loose diamonds are as follows :1967-68 1968-69 1969-70Rs. Rs. Rs. (i) Gold ornaments13,30014,00017,100(ii) Jewellery86,70096,0001,09,700(iii) Loose diamonds3,20,0003,50,0003,80,0004,20...
Tag this Judgment!Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)277; [1979]120ITR211(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 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 guarantee commission of Rs. 33,238 paid by the assessee was expenditure of a capital nature and was hence not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1968-69?'2. The assessee, a company, purchased, for the purpose of its business, some items of machinery on deferred payment terms. Under the terms of purchase, there was to be an immediate payment of 10% or 20% of the cost of the machinery. The balance was to be paid on a deferred basis in half-yearly or yearly instalments. For assuring the due payment of the instalments, the assessee had to obtain a guarantee executed by a bank in favour of the sellers of the machinery, who were abroad, and the bank charged commission at a percentage of the amount guaranteed. This com-mission to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjushree Plantations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR908(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in compliance with the directions of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the general overhead expenses should be allocated against the income from coffee on the basis indicated in Rule 9 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1955, and treat the balance of general overheads as allocable to income from tea ?2. Whether the Tribunal was also right in holding that the managing agency remuneration payable by the company should be allocated to teaand coffee on the basis of profits from tea and coffee and if there are losses from coffee estates and profits from tea estates the entire managing agency remuneration should be allocated to tea?' 2. The assessee is a company owning coffee and tea plantations. In computing the income for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Damodara Mudaliar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR583(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the loss of Rs. 23,394, for the assessment year 1968-69 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee acquired a right to the capital asset and the assessee's right in the capital asset was subsequently extinguished ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the alleged loss suffered by Shri Damodara Mudaliar was on behalf of the assessee-firm ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of Shri Damodara Mudaliar and Smt. T. Krishnaraj. Damodara Mudaliar entered into a 'lease agreement ' with the Government of Tamil Nadu to take on 'lease' a developed plot in...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Lunidaram Tikamdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Mad)186; [1980]121ITR824(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is the same in all the above cases and, therefore, they are dealt with together.2. The assessee is a firm carrying on banking business. The original assessments for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1960-61 were completed accepting the returns filed by the assessee. Subsequently it came to light that the assessee had been indulging in issuing bogus hawalas to some of the traders which had not been taken note of in the assessments, and that, as such, there had been under-assessments. On January 12, 1967, and February 20, 1969, the assessee filed settlement petitions and on the basis of those petitions, the assessment for those' seven years had been reopened,and reassessments had been made. As a result of the reassessments, additions have been made to the income as originally assessed.3. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the ITO for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and as the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »