Chennai Court July 1979 Judgments
Komalam Ammal Vs. Ashoka Cycle and Motor Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ194
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. This revision petition is filed as against the order of the Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli in C.M.A. No. 29 of 1974. The landlady has preferred this revision petition. The Rent Controller in H.R.C.O.P. No. 243 of 1972 held in her favour by holding that there has been a wilful default, in the payment of rents for nearly 33 months and that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises and therefore are bound to surrender vacant possession of the premises within 2 months from the date of the order.2. The landlady being the petitioner herein, filed the petition claiming that the schedule premises is a non-residential one and it was leased out on 16th June, 1966 in favour of the first respondent, for carrying on a business in cycle spare parts, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. It is stated further there in, that till February, 1968, first respondent was carrying on business in cycle spare parts. But afterwards, the landlady was informed that the business in cycle s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam and Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: [1982]133ITR779(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. We shall first deal with T.C. Nos. 461/75 and 231 and 232/76 before we go into the other group of references. In this group of references, the following' is the question that has been referred to this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-1, Madras, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that in the fresh assessments to be made for each of the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, capital expenditure on improving the property of the trust or maintaining such property, which would result in the income of the trust being maintained or increased would constitute application of amounts for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a charitable trust founded about two centuries ago. Unfortunately, we do not have before us any idea of the objects for which the trust ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late V. Rm. Valliappa Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR181(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 64(3) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the following question has been referred : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no goodwill attached to the commission business in jaggery and tamarind and the business in yarn and cloth, carried on by the deceased and accordingly deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000 ' 2. The estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of one Valliappa Chettiar on 3rd August, 1961. He was carrying on commission business in jaggery and tamarind and trading business in yarn and cloth. For the purpose of estate duty assessment, the Asst. CED valued the goodwill of the business at Rs. 65,000 and included it in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased. The accountable person appealed and the Appellate CED held that looking to the criteria like location, the services, the honesty of those who run the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Ali HussaIn M. Jeevaji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR421(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two references arise out of a common transaction of the formation of a partnership on the following facts: There was a firm called N. A. Taiyabali and Company, carrying on business at No. 294, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras. The firm consisted of, (1) Goolamally Mohamadally, (2) All Hussain Mulla, (3) Hatimbhai Mulla, and (4) Fatam-bai Jeevaji. Each one of the partners had 1/4 share in the partnership firm. The firm had two branch offices, one at Devaraja Mudali Street and another at Sembudas Street. By a release deed dated 4th May, 1959, Fatambai Jeevaji took over the Devaraja Mudali Street branch, after relinquishing her rights and interest in the partnership firm. Similarly, Hatimbhai Mulla took over the branch office at Sembudas Street, after relinquishing all his rights and interest in the partnership firm Taiyabali and Company. After the retirement of these two partners, Goolamally Mohamadally and Ali Hussain Mulla were the two partners that were left to carr...
Tag this Judgment!Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)273; [1980]126ITR125(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this common reference, for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, following are the questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer dated July 20, 1971, in so far as it related to the refusal to give interest under Section 214, is not appealable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest under Section 214 is payable up to the date of regular assessment, viz., November 26, 1970?' 2. The assessee is a well-known co-operative society. The assessments for the three years under reference were completed on 26th November, 1970, Following are the details of the income determined, tax determined, advance tax paid and interest under Section 214 allowed by the ITO.Assessment yearIncome determinedTax determinedAdvance tax paidInterest allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR900(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. All these references have been made by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras. In T.C.Nos. 459 of 1975 and 241 to 250 of 1976, the following question has been referred : ' Whether in computing the total income of the assessee for any of the eleven assessment years 1957-58 to 1967-68 (both inclusive) the amount of expenditure disallowed by the Income-tax Officer in each of those eleven assessment years out of the amount of expenditure incurred by way of payment of royalty under Clause 13 of the collaboration agreement to the foreign collaborator is an expenditure in the nature of a capital expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. In T.C. Nos. 452 of 1975, 220, 221 and 222 of 1976, the questions referred are as follows : ' 1. Whether the entirety of Rs. 20,81,446 and Rs. 29,35,251 paid by the assessee to the foreign collaborators by way of royalty in accordance with Clause 13(ii) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South Arcot District Co-operative Suppl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1979
Reported in: [1981]127ITR467(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This common reference is under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contributions made by the assessee-society to the 'education fund' should be allowed as a deduction in computing the income for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the loss of Rs. 22,364 incurred by it in the sale of Government securities held by it for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. We shall first deal with the common question for all the assessment years before going into the question relating to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains, pulses, sugar, agricultural operation requisites and marketing of commodities for the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!K. Madhavakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)340; [1980]124ITR233(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 26(1) of the G.T. Act, the following questions have been referred: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Gift-tax Officer that there was a gift of the properties to the donee in the year of account 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the memo of compromise itself constituted the gift in the case 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that even if the memo of compromise is not registered, it will still constitute a gift in the circumstances stated by the Appellate Tribunal ?' 2. The GTO started proceedings under Section 16(1) of the G.T. Act, on the basis that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 13 in respect of the taxable gift made by him the taxable gift has escaped assessment. In...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Vt. Rm. K. Ramasami Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ178
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No.55 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakkottai is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit on the foot of a promissory note for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,157,70. The lower Court granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 970.00 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 1st March, 1972.2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit may be briefly stated as follows: On 20th November, 1967 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the plaintiff on the foot of Exhibit A-l promissory note. As on 12th June, 1969 the amount due under the promissory note dated 20th November, 1957 (Exhibit A-l) was Rs. 8,484.95 after giving credit to certain payments made by the defendant evidenced by the endorsements on the note. On 12th June, 1969 itself the defendant executed a fresh promissory note for the sum of Rs. 8,484.95 due under Exhibit A-l. A copy of the said promissory note is marked as Exhibit A-8, as the original is sta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Falcon Wires (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR427(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act (in T.C. 468 of 75) has been made for obtaining the opinion of this court on the following question:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company is a factory engaged in the manufacture of plastic goods and it is, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 15% under item (16) of B of III of Part I, Appendix I (Rubber and Plastic Goods Factories General machinery and plants) '2. The assessee is a private company incorporated on 19th May, 1971, with the object of manufacturing insulated cables and wires. The assessee claimed depreciation in the return for the assessment year 1972-73 on plant and machinery and also the relief under Section 80J. The depreciation claimed was at the rate of 15% on a sum of Rs. 99,000 representing additions of plant and machinery. The ITO applied the rate of 10%. The assessee appealed to the AAC, w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »