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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H. Rajan and H. Kannan (L. Rs. of Late ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1979
Reported in: [1984]149ITR545(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu IV, Madras, and is under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. The following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that there was no transfer of assets in the assessee's case within the meaning of Section 2(47) read with Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. The assessment year under consideration is 1968-69, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1968. One Damodaran Nair was carrying on business in bus service under the name and style of Andavar Transports, Devakottai, till March 31, 1967. On April 1, 1967, he converted the individual business into a partnership business in which he and his two nephews, H. Rajan and H. Kannan Unni, were the, partners. Damodaran Nair had a half share in the firm and others had one-fourth share each. The ITO was of the view that the buses along with routes had been tran...
K.M. Mohamed Ghouse and Co., Represented by Partner K.M. Abdul Salam V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT683(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Sri Nityananda Kundu of No. 212 Maharshi Debendar Road, Calcutta-7, imported crude drugs under a valid import licence from Singapore by vessel S.S. Rajula. The petitioner herein acted as custom house clearing agents on behalf of the importer and filed the bill of entry and cleared the consignment which consisted of 175 cases. The customs officials opened and examined 18 cases at random and being satisfied that the contents were crude drugs as declared, allowed clearance on payment of the import duty at 100% and surcharge of 10% under I.C.T. item No. 9(3) on the G.I.F. value which altogether came to Rs. 6403.18.2. Subsequently on 29-4-1964, the Deputy Superintendent, Customs House, Nagapattinam, issued .a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 17486.63 from the. importer as differential duty on the ground that the goods cleared are assessable at the tariff value of Rs. 350 per quintal under item 9(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff at 100% ad valorem. The importer sent a reply on 1...
Ramalinga Kalingarayar Vs. the Village Panchayat, Vadakkur South by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ345
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The appellant, Kamalinga Kalingarayar, was a former President of the Vadakkur South Village Panchayat from February, 1961 to February, 1965. The appellant, functioning as President of the Panchayat, along with the other members constructed a dam or weir on a drainage channel in the village, spending monies from out of the panchayat funds. This construction work was subsequently declared by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Thanjavur, as unauthorised. He also ordered demolition of the dam. The appellant took the matter in revision before this Court, but without success. He then filed a regular suit, O.S. No. 370 of 1963 against the Magistrate, the State of Madras and others for a permanent injunction against the demolition of the dam. He also filed an application for an interim injunction. The application was dismissed. But the appellant took the matter to the District Court, where the order was reversed. But on further appeal by the opposite parties, this ...
A.P.V. Rajendran Vs. S.A. Sundararajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad123
1. The appellant. who in, the same in an then appeals in a decree-holder in O. S. No. 328 of 1972 an the file of the Sub Court, Madurai He obtained a decree in the add suit on 22-10-1971 Even before the passing of the decree he had attached the property of the respondent judgment-debtor in I A. No. 597 of 1971 before judgment. The said attachment was made absolute an the date of the decree. The appellant thereafter filed E. P. 222 of 1972 for the sale of the attached property to Teatime the decree amount. On 6-2-1973 and 17-4-1973, the respondent has paid in all a sum of Rs. 6,000. For the balance of the decree amount let No. 1 of the attached property was actually sold, on 28-1-1974, for a sum of Rs. 40,000, to the decree-holder and the second lot was not sold for want of bidders. The sale of lot No. 1 was confirmed by the court on 2-3-1974 and full satisfaction of the decree has also been recorded.2. Subsequently the appellant filed a petition in E A. 600 of 1974, in E. P. 222 of 197...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR313(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These two tax cases arise out of an order of the Tribunal dated May 18, 1974. At the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, the first reference was made, and as he was not satisfied with the questions actually referred, a further petition under Section 26(2) of the G.T. Act was filed as a result of which certain other questions were directed to be referred and they form the questions referred in T.C. No. 343 of 1978.2. We shall first deal with the reference under Section 26(1) of the G.T. Act and that is in T.C. No. 158 of 1975. The questions referred therein are as follows; '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no deemed gift within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, in the assessee's case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gift made in the assessee's case would be exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?' 2...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K. Hilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR781(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference arising under the E.D. Act, 1953, the following question has been referred under Section 64(1) of the Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the exemption under Section 33(1)(n) should be granted in computing the dutiable estate of the deceased ?'2. The deceased owned a property in Madras consisting of a building and 16 grounds of land. He had a son and three daughters. By a gift deed dated 1st March, 1970, he divided the property into four lots and gifted each lot to the son and three daughters, respectively. Part of the property in which the building was situated fell to the lot of one of the daughters and the deceased continued to live in that property till his death on 7th December, 1970. The accountable person claimed exemption with reference to this property under Section 33(1)(n) and the Asst. Controller granted the exemption. The accountable person had some othe...
S. Ramanujam and ors. Vs. M.E. Manicka Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ553
M.M. Ismail, J.1. All these three proceedings relate to the same parties and are concerned with the same property and consequently they are disposed of together by a common judgment. In all these proceedings the respondent is the same, namely one M. E. Manicka Mudaliar.2. There was no dispute that in respect of the suit property, namely, a vacant site, the appellants herein were tenants and they had put up a rice and flour mill thereon. They had taken the lease of the suit property from the predecessor-in-title of the respondent and after respondent obtained title to the property under the original of Exhibit A-2, dated 29th July. 1969, the appellants-petitioners attorned the tenancy to the respondent, and had been paying rent to him.3. The respondent filed O.S. No 990 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Vellore, for recovery of possession of the suit property and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 250 being the arrears of rent. In the suit, the first appellant herein fi...
Somasundara Kounder Vs. Krishna Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ41
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In these days when social justice is the order of the day, Courts also have to align themselves with such environment which would generate harmony not only between the Court and community at large. This is a case in which the following order was passed as a condition precedent for setting aside an ex parte decree:The petition will be allowed on payment of Rs. 25 on or before 6th April, 1974 as a condition precedent, failing which petition shall stand dismissed.The 6th and 7th of April, 1974, were holidays. The order did not specify as to whom the payment should be made, namely the party or the counsel or whether it would be deposited in Court to the credit of the suit. The petitioner took one of such available courses, and tendered the amount on the 8th April, 1974, to the Head Clerk, civil Court who refused to receive the same. The petitioner filed an application to the Court to grant him two days' time for depositing the amount which was available with h...
Seethammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR597(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Sections 256(1) of the I.T. Act of 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the HUF consisting of the karta and his wife ceased to exist due to the death of the karta before the commencement of assessment proceedings, the assessment on the HUF is possible under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. One Sannanna Chettiar, his two wives, Venkatammal and Seethammal, and their four sons constituted a HUF of which Sannanna Chettiar was the karta. He was being assessed in the status of a HUF for the purpose of income-tax. There was a partition in the family on 19th April, 1951, by a partition deed. Under the said partition deed all the properties were divided between Sannanna Chettiar and his four sons and there was also a provision that the properties set out in Schedule 'B' to the partition deed and allotted ...
The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Indian Refrigeration Industries Pri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC264(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. I have perused the judgment prepared by Balasubrahmanyan, J., and I regret my inability to agree with it. The relevant facts which have given rise to this tax revision case filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 15th November, 1971, are as follows:2. The assessee is a dealer in electric motors and humidifiers. For the assessment year 1961-62, it reported a turnover of Rs. 2,06,934.83. There were some sales returns, and after excluding them, the net taxable turnover came to Rs. 1,86,926.22. This sum was brought to tax by the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore-7, dated 7th February, 1963. On 13th August, 1964, there was an inspection by the officers of the department of the assessee's place of business and certain records were recovered which, when compared with the regular books, showed that there was a suppression of a turnover ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »