Chennai Court July 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. Admiralty Flats Motel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: [1982]133ITR895(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the assessee by letting but articles/furniture provided in Admiralty Flats Motel should be assessed under the head ' Business' ' 2. There was an HUF consisting of P. V. Gajapathi Raju, his wife, Radha, and his two daughters, Vidya and Urmila. P. V. Gajapathi Raju was the karta of this family. In the partition of a larger HUF, of which Gajapathi Raju was a coparcener, he obtained certain properties, movable and immovable, as and for his share. These properties belong to the HUF of which Gajapathi Raju was the karta.3. On December 2, 1965, he gifted Rs. 25,000 to each of his two daughters. On April 25, 1966, he gifted a like amount...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraswathi Publicities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: [1981]132ITR207(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, the Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the amounts received by the assessee amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 1,50,000 from Blaze in terms of the agreement of April 1, 1966, was liable to be assessed in any of the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm of five partners. The previous years are the calendar years preceding the relevant assessment years. The firm came into existence in January, 1960, and started carrying on the business of arranging exhibition of advertisement films of M/s. Lintas Ltd., originally done under a letter dated 15th January, 1960. By this letter, the rights for distribution and exhibition of films had been secured for the calendar years 1960 to 1962 for the areas, Madras and Rajasthan. Subsequently, there was a formal contrac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR688(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, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled, for the assessment year 1973-74, to relief under Section 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on an amount calculated in terms of the aforesaid provisions, with reference to the gross capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740?'2. The assessee, a HUF, derived capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740 in the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1973-74. There is no dispute about this figure. The assessee claimed that the capital gains should be processed under Section 80T on the entire sum of Rs. 1,02,740, reduced only by the exemption of Rs. 5,000 available under the same provision. The ITO considered that this claim was not tenable and he adjusted the business loss of Rs. 41,892 against the capital gains of Rs. 1,02,740 and brought to tax a sum of Rs. 55,848 a...
M.S. Babu Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ411
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one Babu who was working as a peon in the Revenue Department of the Corporation of Madras to set aside the order dismissing him from service. It is stated that he was first appointed as a peon in the Corporation on 21st August, 1964. He was transferred to the Revenue Department on 30th December, 1971. On 7th January, 1972 he was posted to work under the tax collector Kirmani. While so a memo. was issued to him on 6th July, 1976 by the Commissioner. By the said memo, he was placed under suspension. The memo, stated that he had collected a sum of Rs. 100 from Smt. Sakunthala, owner of premises No. 1 A, Dr. Vijayaragavalu Road Madras-81 and that he had not remitted the money into the Corporation treasury nor returned the money and thereby misappropriated the account. Charges were framed against him. He submitted his explanation on 26th July, 1976. He denied having received any amount from Sakunthala. He has also stated that in...
Universal Commercial Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR775(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred :' Whether, by reason of an assessment having been made on Smt. Manibai, an erstwhile partner of the assessee-firm, including her share income from the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1965-66, no assessment could be made on the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm for that assessment year '2. The assessee was a firm of two partners, namely, Smt. Suvarna B. Acharya and Smt. Manibai, constituted under a deed dated December 9, 1964. The assessee filed an application claiming registration for the assessment year 1965-66, on December 29, 1964. The business of the firm was closed on June 30, 1965. One of the partners, Smt. Manibai, left for Hyderabad in July, 1965, and set up business there. The other partner left for Bangalore. Since the assessee had not filed any return, the ITO closed the file relating to its registration and he issued a notice under Section 148 ...
P.A. Ameerjohn and Bros. Vs. Anna Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ520
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. For the grant of a stage carriage permit to ply on the town service route from Dharmapuri Bus Stand to Palacode, applications were invited. The petitioner obtained 8 marks and the respondent obtained 9 marks On the basis of marks, the respondent was selected and the permit was granted to the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. Out of the 9 marks awarded to the respondent, 5 marks were awarded under Rule 155-A(3)(D), and these marks, therefore, should not be taken into account for the purpose of comparing the relative merits of the petitioner and the respondent. It is true that in every case, on the basis of a State Transport undertaking, the respondent Corporation is given 5 marks, but there is another provision in Rule 155-A(3)(D)(ii), that if the applicant already operates stage carriages, he will have to be offered certain marks on the basis of the number of stage carriages run by them. The petitioner who was operating t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›