Chennai Court June 1979 Judgments
Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. V.M. Muthuramalingam, Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)316; [1981]129ITR675(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 2562 of 1974 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.2. The complaint under Section 276B of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed against the petitioners in the following circumstances:3. The first petitioner is a company having its registered office at Madras and the second petitioner is the principal officer of the company within the meaning of Section 2(35) of the Act. The first petitioner had in its employ several persons getting taxable salary during the financial year ended March 31, 1971. Under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act, several sums of money had been deducted by the petitioners as income-tax from the salaries of those employees. The amounts so deducted were, however, not paid to the credit of the Central Govt. within a week from the date of such deductions as prescribed by Section ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Manohara Chetty and ors. Vs. C. Coomaraswamy Naidu and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ466
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for injunction. The subject-matter of the suit is a verandah in a building in N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras City. The first appellant Manohara Chetty, is the owner of the building. The building has a ground floor and a first floor. The first floor has four rooms and a verandah. The respondent, a book-selling firm, is a tenant of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent's tenancy comprised the four rooms on the first floor, excluding the varandah. The 1st appellant came to Court and asked for an injunction against his tenant, the respondent, because, according to him, the respondent was attempting to occupy even the first floor verandah which was not part of the tenancy in his favour.2. The respondent resisted the suit, asserting that its tenancy comprised the whole of the first floor, and this included the verandah as well.3. The trial Court recorded a finding that the respondents tenancy of the first floor i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Mariantony Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Assi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ526
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent-the Management of the Orappanavillai High School, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil relating to their proceedings No. 16 of 1969-70, dated 30th July, 1975, of the second respondent- the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) relating to his proceedings D.Dis. No. 183433/G7/75, dated 15th April, 1976 and of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent, relating to their memo. No. 90489/D1/76, dated 18th December, 1976 and quashing the orders in the memo. dated 18th December, 1976 and for passing further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner was employed as Headmaster in the third respondent-High School. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him on 16th September, 1966. During the pendency of those proceedings the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srinivasa Perumal Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR692(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raises the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the payment of gratuity as an admissible expenditure ' 2. The assessee was carrying on business in banking. In accordance with the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, during 1964, it took over the assets and liabilities of three other banks, namely, the Coimbatore Aryan Bank Ltd., the Coimbatore Varthaka Vridhi Bank Ltd., and the Krupakara Bank Ltd., Coimbatore. As a result of the merger of these banks, the board of directors passed two resolutions, one on 31st January, 1964, and the other, on 21st November, 1964, in the matter of gratuity payments. Under these resolutions, gratuity of one month's pay per year was payable on the retirement of the particular member of the staff. No gratuity was payable if the employee resigned on his own accord or was dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC32(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 6th May, 1975, under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee was a dealer in oil-seeds, oil and oilcake at Tiruchy. It reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 7.16 lakhs and Rs. 3.82 lakhs respectively for 1971-72. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Woraiyur Division, found certain defects in the accounts and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 4,94,349.00, as against the turnover reported by the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that the estimate was not proper. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that though some of the criticisms against the accounts were not material or correct, still there were some others which called for an estimate of the assessee's turnover. He sustained an addition of 2 per cent made by the assessing officer towards low yield and low gross profit and refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal Achi Vs. S. Subbalakshmi Alias D. Subbalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ352
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of N.S. Ramaswami, J. The respondent as judgment-debtor in a mortgage action sought for the scaling down of a mortgage debt which had ripened into a mortgage decree, under Section 15 of Act XXXVIII of 1972 under fee following circumstances. In 1970 a mortgage was admittedly executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The appellant filed a suit, O.S. No. 133 of 1972 in which the respondent, inter alia, claimed the status of a debtor within the meaning of Act XXXVIII of 1972, and therefore the incidental and consequential benefits arising thereunder. But before the preliminary decree was passed on 18th April, 1973, the respondent as defendant-debtor gave up that plea and submitted to a decree. The result was that a preliminary mortgage decree was passed on 18th April, 1973. Accepting the correctness of the decision and also his status as an ordinary judgment-debtor in a mortgage action, without any further pr...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kuthabaksh Vs. A.P. Samy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ249
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This revision is allowed on the simple ground that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have not disposed of the petition granting relief to the Landlord, bearing in mind the obligation of the statutory authorities to give a definite finding about the bona fides of the landlord. No doubt the petition has been ordered, consequent to the default committed by the tenant and I could see sufficient procrastination in his attitude towards the proceedings. It cannot be said that the tenant has not delayed the disposal of the petition. There have been sufficient materials to hold that he has prevented early consideration of the matter by both the authorities. Whatever be his attitude, when the petition is allowed due to default committed by the tenant, and when it arises under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, there is statutory obligation on the statutory authorities to give a finding about the bona fide requirements of the landlord, even though the petition may ...
Tag this Judgment!Chemical Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Mad)19
ORDER : Varadarajan, J. - This writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case C. No. 124 (133)/76-77/TN. II on the file of the CIT, Tamil Nadu-II, the first respondent and the records of the case No. 47-003-C.T.044/2C/74-75, dated 27-10-1975 on the file of the ITO, Company Circle II(1), Madras, the second respondent and to quash the orders dated 18-4-1977 of the first respondent and 27-10-75 of the second respondent. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioners Chemical Enterprises Private Limited submitted a return on 27-11-1974 for the accounting year 1973-74 to the second respondent. In respect of that return, the enquiry was posted for hearing and the assessment was completed on 16-8-1975. In the enquiry, the capital gain was determined as Rs. 68,531/- for the purpose of capital gains tax. In the pervious year 1972-73, there was a business loss and there was unabsorbed depreciation for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.G. Gopinath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1979
Reported in: [1998]231ITR229(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The respondent is an Income-tax Officer working as junior authorised representative in the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. As an Income-tax officer, he was in receipt of cash, a reward of Rs. 1,060, granted by the Central Government for his meritorious work in discharging his public duties as an Income-tax Officer at the time of the voluntary disclosure scheme. The assessee claimed that this reward was exempted under Section 10(17B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim stating that there was no notification issued under that provision exempting this reward from assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's claim and granted the exemption. The Income-tax Officer took the matter on appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal agreed with the Appellate. Assistant Commissioner in regard to the grant of exemption. It is this order of the Tribunal which was challenged by filing an application for reference which was di...
Tag this Judgment!Asa John Devinathan and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)260; [1980]126ITR270(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. T.C. No. 119 of 1975 is a consolidated reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1963-64. The question of law that has been referred at the instance of the assessee runs as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the notice issued under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer for each of the assessment years 1957-58 to 1963-64 was proper and in exercise of jurisdiction validly assumed '2. For the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, at the instance of the Commissioner, the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in withdrawing development rebate of Rs. 38,918 for the assessment year 1957-58 and Rs. 17,730 f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »