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.
A Elliah Devar Vs. D Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ31
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. In an application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority found, as a fact, that the application was bona fide, that the hardship which might result to the tenant would not outweigh the advantage which the landlord might gain by reason of the order of eviction and that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just and proper that an order of eviction should be made. It is as against this, the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. Three contentions are raised before me, namely:(1) that, on an earlier occasion, a similar application was filed for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(2) of the Act for additional accommodation of the portion in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant and that having been dismissed at the High Court level, no further application is maintainable, since it Was found in that case that the r...
Mesdames Tara Moolgaukar and ors. Vs. T. Raja Mohan Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ504
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The landlords who failed before the appellate authority in an application filed by them under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, are the petitioners herein. The case of the petitioners is that they let out the premises in question to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 700 plus Rs. 300 for fittings, etc., under a lease deed, dated 1st August, 1972, for the purpose of running a boarding and lodging house. The lease deed also provided that the demised premises shall take into its fold a garage. The main contention of the petitioner was that the tenant-respondent did not pay the Corporation tax due and payable for the premises, which, according to the petitioners, was payable by the tenant under the terms of the lease and that the respondent used the garage as a dormitory and had thus committed or caused to be committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utilit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR859(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1 . The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the CIT:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sales tax liability to the extent of Rs. 16,220 was an admissible deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1972-73?'2. The assessee, though served, was not present and Mr. J. Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the Commissioner, placed before us all the aspects of the question. The facts relevant to the question are as follows:3. The assessee is an individual who sells appalams by the trade name of 'Ammami Appalam '. The same business is carried on at Trichy and Salem. The same brand of appalam is also sold through a firm called Ammami Appalam Depot with its head office at Madurai and branch at Coimbatore. The partners of the firm at the relevant time were V. Krishnan and R. V. Easwaran. Easwaran also like ...
R. Kuppuswamy Mudaliar and Sons Vs. the Board of Revenue (Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC152(Mad)
ORDERVaradarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus or other order or direction calling for the records in BP. Rt. No. 3079/75 dated 20th October, 1975, on the file of the Board of Revenue, Madras, the first respondent herein, and quashing the same and directing the Board of Revenue to exercise the powers of revision and cancel the assessment made on the petitioner by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruppattur, North Arcot, in his proceedings C.S.T.1605/67-68 dated 25th October, 1968.2. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the assessment year 1967-68. The petitioner is a dealer in jaggery, etc., and he was assessed to sales tax. He submitted a return declaring the taxable turnover of Rs. 6,79,810.84 for the assessment year 1967-68 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing officer determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 6,79,697.31 and called for objection which was not filed b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Cader Motor Service
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)231; [1980]122ITR812(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two references have been made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act and they raise the following questions: ' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a sale of the bus MDR 3569 by the assessee to Chellappa Chettiar during the relevant previous year 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty levied on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69, consequent to its finding that Rs. 32,823 being the depreciation that had been allowed for the bus MDR 3569 in the earlier years could not be brought to tax for this assessment year under Section 41(2) of the said Act '2. The assessee is a firm of four partners, viz., Chellappa Chettiar, R. Abdulla Rowther, Mohamed Abdul Cader and Ahmed Ibrahim, The firm came into existence under a partnership deed dated 10th October, 1962. Partner No. 1, viz., Chellappa Chettiar, was entitled to a half share and the other three partners together ...
S.M. Syed MohsIn and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR826(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following are the questions which have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ' 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the official rate of exchange set out in rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, alone should be adopted 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in adopting the value equivalent to Indian rupee for the value of the income in Ceylon at the official rate of exchange '2. In the other tax cases heard along with this case, namely, T.C. Nos. 391 and 392 of 1975, the questions of law referred in those cases are identical and, therefore, they need not be re-produced. For our present purpose, it is enough to set out the facts in the case of the assessee in T.C. No. 364 of 1975, as there is no dispute that the facts in the connected cases are similar. The...
M.K. Abdul Rahiman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR93(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the sum of Rs. 24,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee (Abdul Rahiman) for the assessment year 1971-72?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the sum of Rs. 12,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee (Adam Sahib) for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The relevant facts are in a short compass. It is enough to mention the facts in the case of Abdul Rahiman as the facts in the case of Adam Sahib stand on the same footing. Abdul Rahiman was the managing director of A.R.T. Bus Service (P.) Ltd., Jayankondan. During the previous year ending December 31, 1970, the ITO considered that a sum of Rs. 24,000 had accrued to him as his salary. As he had not returned ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Padmavathi Ramachandran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)235
ORDER : Sethuraman, J. - In the pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Appl. Tribunal has referred u/s. 64(3) of the ED Act, the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appl. Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,71,519/- is not includible as gifts deemed to pass on the death of the deceased in terms of s. 10 of the ED Act' ?One A. P. Ramchandra died on 23rd May, 1960. He was carrying of business in the manufacture and sale of perfumery under the name and style of M/s. Ganga Works as sole proprietor. He was also a partner in the firm of M/s. A. R. Rangachari Perfumeries with 0-2-0 share therein. On 20th March, 1948, he executed a deed, by and under which he assigned and conveyed on his wife a one-third of his profits in M/s Ganga Works and a one-third of his share of profits in M/s. A. R. Rangachari Perfumeries to be taken by her absolutely and exclusively for a period of eight years. On 22nd March, 1948, he executed a s...
R. Kamalam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad86
Ramanujam, J. 1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No. 112 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapurarn, is the appellant. The plaintiff undertook the construction' work of Kurunthacode Panchayat Union office building for an estimated cost of Rs. 43,000/- and odd on 15-1-1965. Since the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Nagercoil, the second defendant, was not satisfied with the progress of the work, the contract was cancelled by him and the plaintiff was asked not to proceed with the work. On such cancellation certain articles, which the plaintiff had stored at the work spot, were alleged to have been removed by the d6partment on 3-9-1967. Subsequently, on the basis of certain revised estimate A, which seem to have been accepted by the department, the plaintiff again continued the construction work and the department also extended the time limit for completion of the work by the plaintiff Thereafter, on 21-4-IM9, the 2nd defendant finally terminated the contract awarded to the plaintiff o...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Padmavathi Ramachandran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)225
: V. Sethuraman, J. - The following question has been referred u/s 64(1) of the ED Act of 1953 at the instance of the CED.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Asstt. Contr. had information leading to the formation of reasonable belief in his mind that property liable to be charged to Estate Duty, had escaped assessment.'2. The estate duty assessment arose on the death of one A. P. Ramchandra on 23rd May, 1960. He was a partner in four firms and owned agricultural lands in several villages. He left behind him, his wife, Padmavathi as his sole heir.3. On 18th April, 1960, he sold 11.28 acres of punja lands in Rajakilpakkam village to one A.K. Sridharan for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- another 12.8 acres of land (Punja) in the same village to A. K. Sriram for Rs. 13,000/-; another 30.62 acres of punja lands in Madambakkam village to A. P. Vivekananda for a sum of Rs. 2,900/- and a further 24.64 acres of punja lands in the same village to A. K. Srikanth for Rs. 3,500/-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »