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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.V. Rajamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR132(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under the W.T. Act, the following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of penalty passed on March 14, 1973, for the assessment year 1964-65 under the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, was not hit by limitation ?'2. At the instance of the CWT, 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 law to be applied to determine the quantum of penalty leviable under the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act in the present case was the law as obtaining on November 9, 1964, when the original return was filed ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty of Rs. 30,655 imposed under the provisions of Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act to Rs. 180?' 3. The assesse...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.V.K. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR854(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the CIT :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Hindu undivided family of which Shri K. V. K. Veerappa Chettiar is the karta continued to exist and that, accordingly, the settlement by the karta in favour of his son is void ?'2. K. V. K. Veerappa Chettiar was the karta of a joint family consisting of himself and his son, Sundaram. He had also a daughter by name Kamalammal. On November 20, 1969, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter, Kamalammal, who was already married, and on November 25, 1969, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, Sundaram. The GTO issued a notice to the assessee under Section 13(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958, and the assessee submitted a return in which he admitted having made a gift of the value of Rs. 76,900. However he claimed that the gift was not taxable. The actual figure which s...
Kuppa Pandithan Vs. Marudhachala Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ503
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant against whom an eviction petition was filed by the first respondent claiming to be the landlord.2. The grounds on which eviction was sought are threefold : (1) that the petitioner has wilfully defaulted in the payment of the rent due by him; (2) that the first respondent as owner requires the premises for his own occupation; and (3) that the petitioner has sublet the premises unauthorisedly to respondents 2 and 3 herein without the written consent of the landlord.3. The eviction petition was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds. The petitioner's case is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the first respondent in respect of the property in his occupation and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any rent for such occupation. He also contended that he has lent a substantial sum of Rs. 3,100 to the first respondent on the specific understanding that he will be allowed to-occupy the building till the sa...
Haji Abdullah Sait Vs. K. Sanjeevi Rao and 8 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ413
Ismail, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of this Court on fee original side, namely, in C.S. No. 218 of 1965. The former appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, while the latter appeal has been filed by the third defendant in the suit. Since both sides have preferred appeals, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in the suit. Admittedly the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Equally admittedly the property was leased to one late Seetharama Rao under Exhibit P-1 dated 8th July, 1940 and the lease expired on 15th July, 1943, but late Seetharama Rao continued to be in possession as a tenant holding over. This was obviously because the Rent Control Orders and the legislations that were in force in this State gave protection to such persons from eviction. The legislation regarding control of rents started during the second world war. In the then Presidency of Madras the first two orders under the Defence of India R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›