Chennai Court June 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.
Fifth Income-tax Officer Vs. A. U. Chandrasekaran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: [1986]17ITD202(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri V. Rajagopalan, Judicial Member - This department appeal is against the order of the AAC, whereby he cancelled the assessment made on the assessee in the status of an AOP for the assessment year 1977-78.2. The facts of the case are briefly these :Shri A. U. Chandrasekaran, and nine others are the employees of the India Cement Ltd., Sankari, Salem District. They entered into an agreement on 17-2-1977 as per which they agreed to jointly purchase lottery tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government for which the prize was declared on 28-2-1977. They were fortunate enough to secure a prize of Rs. 1 lakh for one of the tickets, thus, purchased, ivz., ticket No. S-647180. The above 10 persons had authorised Shri Chandrasekaran to collect the above prize amount through the Punjab National Bank. The said bank, after having realized the prize amount, credited the net amount thus drawn, i.e., Rs. 67,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 minus Rs. 33,000 deducted by the Director of Raffles) to the respective b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balasundaram and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR240(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 58,368 paid by the assessee as brokerage to M/s. Merwanjee Bomajee Dalai of Bombay, for arranging for the sale of preference shares issued by M/s. Textool Company Ltd., is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income for the assessment year 1968-69 '2. The assessee is a registered firm and was acting as the managing agent of M/s. Textool Co, Ltd. under an agreement dated 14th August, 1965. Under Clause 5 of the said agreement, the assessee-firm agreed that it would, during the period of the agreement, act as the managing agent of the managed company for the remuneration and on the terms and conditions mentioned in it and would use its best endeavours to promote the interest and the business of the company. The remuneration payable to it is to be found in Clause 6 of the agreement which was subj...
Mohamed Ibrahim and anr. Vs. Abdul Azeez, Represented by His Power Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ394
S. Natarajan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the defendants in O.S. No. 82 of 1975 on the file of the Courts of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. That suit was an under-chapter suit and has been filed by the respondent on the foot that he had obtained an assignment of the suit promissory note from the original promisee.2. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order 37, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit. The Subordinate Judge declined to grant unconditional leave and granted them conditional leave by calling upon the petitioners to deposit one-half of the suit amount before entering defence. 'It is to challenge the correctness of that order the petitioners have come forward with this revision.3. Mr. Sridevan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the Subordinate Judge has found that there is a triable issue in the suit and having rendered such a finding, the learned Judge ought not to have imposed cond...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Ganesa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1979
Reported in: [1982]133ITR103(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question was referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that what was received by the assessee on leaving the firm represented capital receipt and not revenue receipt ?'2. There was a firm known as 'Dhanalakshrni Pictures' in which the assessee was a partner. This firm was constituted under a patnership deed dated 24th April, 1964, with four partners, including the assessee. On 11th October, 1969, the assessee retired from the firm and the assets and liabilities were liable to be taken over by two of the partners who would carry on the distribution of films thereafter. A dissolution deed was drawn up on llth October, 1969, in which it was stated that the parties had mutually agreed to dissolve the partnership as and from llth October, 1969. Clause 6 of the dissolution deed ran as follows :'The party of the 3rd part hereto (the assessee) shall...
V.S. Mani Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR414(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Under Section 26(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958 (for short, ' the Act ') the following question has been referred to this court:' Whether the transaction evidenced by the release deed dated February 25, 1970, executed by the assessee, by and under which he gave up his life interest in the lands set out in Schedules ' B ' and ' C ' thereto, amounts to a ' gift' within the meaning of the expression as denned in Section 2(xii) read with Section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 '.2. Sri S. Vaidyanatha Iyer, who is now no more and who is the father of the assessee, executed a will on November 17, 1957, under which he bequeathed to the assessee 27 acres and 90 cents of wet lands and 5 acres and 32 cents of dry lands totalling 33 acres and 32 cents in certain villagesin Kumbakonam taluk, Thanjavur District, to be enjoyed by him for his lifetime without any power of alienation. After the lifetime of the assessee the lands were to be taken by his grandson R. V. Ramani and Sakuntala ...
S.P. Janakipatti Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ340Mad
ORDERVaradarajan, J.1. The petitioner was working as an accountant under the 2nd respondent, the Madras Circle Postal Co-operative Bank Limited, Madras-1. He entered the service in January, 1936, and attained the age of superannuation on 16.6.1971 In the claim petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he prayed for computation of the gratuity payable to him on the basis of the award Ext. P1, dated 29.5.1970 made in I.D. No. 53 of 1969 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Madras. That award provides for payment of gratuity at half a month's salary for every year of service subject to a maximum of 15 months salary. The award has considered the question of even basic wages and dearness allowances separately and a note has been added to the award saying that 'Pay' means the average monthly salary drawn during the last year of the employee's service. There is no dispute regarding the petitioner's right to claim gratuity as per that award. The dispute b...
Manivannan Vs. His Excellency the Lt. Governor, Pondicherry State, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ474
Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of l969 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant herein.2. The suit was instituted by the Appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,63,180 on the following allegations:3. The appellant became the successful bidder on 18th December, 1963, for toddy shop No. 1 of Villianur Commune for a duration of there years from 1st January, 1964 against sum of Rupees Forty-five thousand and five hundred and eighty three per year and the toddy shop had worked well during the year, 1964 and taxes due to the Government have been fully and regularly paid; as per order dated 14th April, 1965, the Government has declared the licencee as deprived of his right of auction and ordered the closing of his shop for the reason that he has not paid the taxes for the months of March and April, 1965 and that he had committed several petty offences; really the Government had intended at any cost to bring the appellant to rui...
Angammal and ors. Vs. Balasubramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ242
V. Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 and 7, who had lost in the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by the first respondent herein for recovery of possession of the suit property and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,290 towards past mesne profits and also for future mesne profits. The suit properties according to the first respondent, were the self-acquired properties of one Nataraja Pillai, his paternal grandfather. Nataraja Pillai, executed a settlement deed on 2nd March, 1951, in respect of the suit properties giving a life estate in favour of his wife Ponnukkannu Achi and the vested remainder in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent, at the time of the settlement, was only a child, aged about 4 months. According to the terms of the settlement deed, Ponnukkannu is to have a life estate without any powers of alienation. While so, Ponnukkannu Achi purporting to act as guardian of the then minor first respondent and on ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govindoss Purushothamdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)16; [1980]124ITR319(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At the instance of the Addl. CIT, the following question has been referred to us under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising to the assessee by the sale of the property in question, its cost of acquisition should be taken as its market value as on April 1, 1964?'2. There was an HUF which owned a property known as 'Gokulbagh' measuring 29 acres, having purchased it in 1919. The family was a trading family carrying on business of money-lending and this property was shown as a business asset. On March 27, 1922, a partnership deed came into existence between two members of the said family, viz., Purushothamdoss Gokuldoss and Jumnadoss Dwarakadoss. It is not clear as to whether this property was treated as the said firm's property. However, on 6th November, 1953, the money-lending business carried o...
S. Sornam Vs. Inspector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS145D; 1982(10)ELT49(Mad)
Varadarajan, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records of the second respondent, the Union of India, relating to Order ,No. 1624 dated 11-8-1976 relating to F.No. 195/15/303/75 CX-V and quashing that order.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of safety matches and also matches of the type known as Bengal Lights. The Government of India, the second respondent, issued two Notifications Nos. 45 of 1961 and 162 of 1967. Notification No. 45 of 1961 dated 1-3-1961 reads :-'In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts matches of the type known as 'Bengal Lights' when manufactured in a factory whose output does not exceed 500 million matches per year and packed in boxes containing on an average not more than 10 matches, from the payment of so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »