Chennai Court February 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.
K.S. Venkatasubba Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR750(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim the loss of Rs. 27,000 under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is the owner of race horses using them for the purpose of earning income from the races. The assessee sold three horses and incurred a total loss of Rs. 38,000 and claimed the said amount as deduction under Section 36(1)(vi) of the Act. The case put forward before the ITO was that the horses had to be withdrawn from the races since the certificates granted to them had been revoked by the race club authorities and that they had become permanently useless for the purpose of the racing business. This claim of the assessee was negatived by the ITO on the ground that the horses were no...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late Sethuraman Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Mad)326; [1980]121ITR172(Mad)
Sethurahan, J. 1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that the deceased had an interest in the houses allotted to his sons under the partition deed dated 9th March, 1963, whether such interest ceased on his death and whether benefit accrued on such cesser?'2. The estate duty assessment, which has given rise to this reference, came to be made on the death of one Sethuraman Pillai. He left behind him his sons, Thandavaraya Pillai, Muthusekaran Pillai, Kalyanasundaram Pillai, Shanmugam Pillai, Radhakrishna Pillai, Paramesvaran Pillai and Purushottaman Pillai. They constituted a HUF with their respective wives and children. The family owned large properties movable and immovable. On 4th May, 1955, the nanja lands and movable properties were divided, and by a deed dated 9th March, 1963, the house properties belonging to the said HUF were divided. The dec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Best and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR830(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that any part of the remuneration paid in excess of Rs. 5,000 per month from March 1, 1963, to September 30, 1963, should not be disallowed ?2. The question is not happily framed and we would reframe the question as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the remuneration paid in excess of Rs. 5,000 per month from March 1, 1963, to September 30, 1963, could be disallowed by reference to Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act as in force in the relevant year ?'3. The assessee was a private limited company. It submitted a return declaring an income of Rs. 25,23,265. In the statement accompanying the return, the assessee had disallowed a s...
S. Perumal Chettiar Vs. T. Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ137
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff who had lost in the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was laid by him for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,200 on the basis of a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, dated 23rd July, 1970 for a sum of Rs. 2,860. Since the respondent did not make any payment towards the promissory note, the appellant sent a registered notice Exhibit A-2 on 30th June, 1972, demanding the amounts due under the promissory note. The respondent herein sent a reply under Exhibit A-3, dated 3rd July, 1972, admitting the execution of the promissory note and at the same time setting out the circumstances under which the promissory note came to be executed. Since the amount was not paid in spite of the demand by the appellant, the appellant instituted the suit O.S. No. 714 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam, for the recovery of the amounts due under the pro-note.2. The respondent, in his written statement, admitted the execution of the ...
Assistant Collector of Customs Preventive Department Vs. M.N. Mohamed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS362D
ORDERM.S. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egraore, Madras, in C.C. No. 7197 of 1973.The Collector of Customs launched a complaint against the four respondents herein. The first respondent is the son-in-law of the fourth respondent. The third respondent was a cook in the employment of the fourth respondent and the second respondent was a friend of the first respondent.The Collector of Customs charged the respondents herein under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act read with Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 85(ii) of the Gold Control Act.2. The case of the appellant is that the fourth respondent who is the father-in-law of the first respondent was in occupation of premises No. 2, Taylors Lane, G.T. Madras. The appellant on receipt of a report that the respondents were in possion of contraband articles conducted a search of the said premises along with other officers of his Department...
Ramaswami Naidu Vs. M.S. Velappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ88
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal comes up before us, after leave has been granted by Sethuraman, J., permitting an appeal to be filed against his judgment in S.A. No. 81 of 1973. In the second appeal the learned Judge also considered an application filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint, whereunder the plaintiff sought for possession of the suit properties. We shall reserve consideration of this part of the Judgment of the learned Judge, relating to the allowance of the application for amendment of the plaint, at a later stage.2. The relevant facts which led to this appeal may briefly be stated. Alagiriswami Chettiar was the original owner of the suit properties. Under a will, dated 20th August, 1929 (Exhibit B-8), he bequeathed the suit properties in 'favour of his daughter, Kuppammal. Kuppammal, after she became the owner of the properties made a will, Exhibit B-9, dated 2nd August, 1933, in favour of her mother, Meenakshi Animal. Meenakshi Animal executed Exhib...
Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT646(Mad)
ORDERIsmail, J.1. These writ petitions raise a common question and they pray for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent/respondents in the writ petitions to refund the duty paid by the petitioners under Rules 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. In W.P. No. 3258 of 1974 and W.P. No. 236 of 1975 the prayer is a composite one, namely, for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to permit the petitioners to export their stocks of Indian manufactured foreign liquor and beer, after refunding to the petitioners that duty paid in respect of the existing stocks as on 31-8-1974. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these two writ petitions have represented to us that that portion of the prayer regarding permission to export the stock no longer survives and that only the latter portion of the prayer regarding refund of the duty survives. We are considering all these writ petitions together and disposing of them by a common judgment, in view...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharani Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)245; [1981]129ITR244(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These are two references, one arising under the I.T. Act and the other arising under the G.T. Act. T.C. No. 221 of 1975 is the reference under the I.T. Act and the questions that arise for consideration in the said reference are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the firm was liable to assessment under Section 41(2) on the ground that the building, which had earned depreciation, had been sold to its partners ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction in question involves a transfer of a capital asset by the firm resulting in capital gains and whether the capital gains are chargeable to tax ' 2. T.C. No. 220 of 1975 arises under the G.T. Act and the question of law referred therein is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was liable to gift-tax in respect of the transaction by which the properties of the firm were taken over by the partners '3. The assessee ...
Ramu Nadar and ors. Vs. Sundararaja Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ127; (1979)2MLJ95
V. Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1, 3, 6, 13 and 18 are the appellants in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by one Sundararaja Iyengar, the first respondent herein, and one Soundaralakshmi who figured as the first plaintiff in the suit and on whose death, the first respondent herein was recorded as her legal representative.2. The only question that had been seriously raised and strenuously contended before the Courts below has lost much of its substance in view of two judgments of this Court, to which I shall refer a little later. The point in controversy is whether the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXVI of 1963 will have any effect on the right of the first respondent to seek redemption of the property in question. It is common ground that under Exhibits A-1 to A-S the kudiwaram in the properties was othied by the inamdar which is sought to be redeemed. It was contended by the appellants that the right of redemption was lost becau...
A. Nabisa Beevi Vs. Indian Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. by the Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ33
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 21 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, which was one on a hypothecation bond. She filed an application, E.A. No. 86 of 1977, under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938), hereinafter referred to as the Act as amended by Act VIII of 1973 for stay to enable her to apply for scaling down the preliminary decree, dated 21st September, 1965, passed in the said suit. She also filed later, on 22nd June, 1977, an application under Section 19 for scaling down the decree. However, before the application under Section 19 could be numbered the application under Section 20, E.A. No. 86 of 1977, was disposed of by the Court below on 8th July, 1977. In the order passed therein, the Court held that the petitioner judgment-debtor is not a person entitled to the benefits of the said Act, and therefore, the application under Section 20 cannot be maintained. Based on the said order...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »