Chennai Court January 1980 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.
Rayon Traders Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)204; [1980]126ITR135(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ certioraris and to quash the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated July 15, 1976, under the following circumstances :For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessment on the assessee on total income of Rs. 3,68,090 was made on January 31, 1975, resulting in the determination of a gross tax of Rs. 2,51,247. After adjustment of the tax deducted at source of Rs. 5,709 and the advance tax of Rs. 2,32,735 there was a demand of Rs. 12,803. The assessee filed an appeal before the AAC disputing the disallowance of, (a) the claim under s. 35B to Rs. 54,546; (b) gratuity of Rs. 71,720, and (c) the claim for deduction under s. 80G of Rs. 20,000. When the matter came to be heard by the AAC, the assessee restricted its claim as regards the disallowance under s. 35B Rs. 13,387 as against Rs. 54,546. The AAC allowed the three amounts as ultimately pressed before him. The result was that the ITO came to pass an order on January 21, ...
State Vs. C. Sambandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1198
Varadarajan, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, by the learned Sessions Judge, East Thenjavur Dn., Nagapattinam in Crl. Ap. No. 42 of 1977, which had been preferred by the accused against his conviction by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C. C. 589 of 1976 of an offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500 imposed for that conviction.2. The case of the prosecution was this; P. W. 1, the Food Inspector of Nan-nilam Panchayat purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused's tea shop on Kumbakonam road at Kolathumangudy village at 11 a! m, on 7-9-1976 for 84 paise, after serving a form VI notice, Ex. P-l, under the acknowledgment, Ex. P-3 and obtaining the receipt, Ex. P-2 for the said purchase. P. W. 1 observed the necessary formalities viz., dividing the milk purchased by him into three equal parts...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. M.S. Sahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR820(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In all these cases, the common question is whether the offset press is 'other electrical machinery' within the meaning of the relevant entry in the Schedule to the I.T. Act under which separate rates of depreciation are set out for distinct categories of machinery. 2. We shall first take T.C. No. 189 of 1976. The assessee is carrying on the business of running a calendar press, printing press, offset printing press, etc. He claimed depreciation at the rate of 10% for the assessment year 1966-67. The ITO was of the view that the correct depreciation allowable under the rules was only 7%. He, therefore, worked out the depreciation accordingly and granted it. On appeal, the AAC accepted the assessee's contention that the entire machinery was run under electric power and that it should be considered as electrical machinery within the scope of r. 5 of the I.T. Rules read with App. I to the Rules. The ITO appealed to the Tribunal, which found that the machines were offset pr...
W. Selvarani Vs. the Administrator-general and Official Trustee and Tw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ11
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner on allotment by the High Court to the office of the Administrator-General and Official Trustee, was appointed by the Administrator-General and Official Trustee as Steno-typist in his proceedings R.O.C. No. 9096 dated 5th September, 1974. She completed the probation period of two years on 30th September, 1976. However the first respondent, the Administrator-General, in his proceedings dated 24th January, 1977 purported to extend the period of probation by six months, that is, upto 30th March, 1977. By another proceeding dated 6th June, 1977, the period of probation was further extended by another three months from 30th March, 1977. On 17th June, certain charges were framed against the petitioner and she was asked to show cause why her probation should not be terminated. Ultimately, by an order dated 15th July, 1977, the first respondent Administrator-General, holding that the petitioner was not suitable to become a full member of the service and he...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S.S.M. Lingappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)56; [1981]129ITR597(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. It is convenient to take T. C. No. 865 of 1976 as typical of all the cases now before us as both parties agree that the main discussion is in this case and that the decision here has been followed in the other cases. The question referred in this case runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the free use of the company's car by the director could not be a perquisite or benefit within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that, therefore, it cannot be assessed as the income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is an HUF. In the assessment year 1970-71 there was an addition of Rs. 5,394 as perquisite received from M/s.S.S. M. Brothers (P.) Ltd. According to the ITO the karta of the assessee-family was a director of the said company and had obtained the benefits in the shape of the use of the companys' assets, viz., motor car, telephone, etc. In the assessment of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. V.K. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)33; [1981]128ITR727(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a commercial activity amounting to business and that the assessee is entitled to development rebate on X-Ray equipment and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction in finding that the provisions of section 154 would not apply to the assessee's case ?' 2. The assessee is a medical practitioner having taken a post-graduate degree. For the assessment year 1972-73, he claimed development rebate on X-Ray machines amounting to Rs. 13,013. The machinery had been purchased on 18th February, 1972, at a cost of Rs. 86,754 and was installed in the relevant assessment year and used in the same year. The ITO allowed the claim for development rebate. Later on, he purported to rectify the assessment order by...
S. Radhakrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: [1984]145ITR171(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled, in each one of the three years in question, to the exemption claimed under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee, S. Sambu Prasad, was the owner of a property situated in Chamiers Road, Adayar, Madras. The property was of an extent of 112 grounds with a bungalow, out-house, garage, sheds and other erections. On different occasions, portions of the land adjacent to the bungalow to the extent of 58 grounds were sold to various persons, and in 1966, he was in possession and enjoyment of the bungalow with the remaining extent of land of 53 grounds and 550 sq.ft. 3. On August 13, 1966, the owner entered into an agreement with the firm known as M/s. Raghava and Veera, who were real estate declares and contractors, for the sale of 53 grounds and 550 sq.ft. with the building for ...
T.V. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)217; [1980]123ITR464(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. For the assessment year 1972-73, the following question has been referred to this court under. s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the debt of Rs. 36,000 owing by the assessee to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as on the relevant valuation date, was one which was not to be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets of the assessee for computing the net taxable wealth for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' For the assessment year 1973-74, the question referred runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the debt of Rs. 56,485 owing by the assessee to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as on the relevant valuation date, was one which was not to be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets of the assessee for computing the net taxable wealth for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. We shall first take up for consideration the reference for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee ...
The State Transport Authority, Madras Vs. S. Chinnaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad74
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of V. Ramaswami, J., dated 28-2-1979 allowing W. P. No. 3909 of 19782. Most of the facts are not in controversy. The respondent herein was the grantee of a national permit in the proceedings of the State Transport Authority. Madras, the appellant herein, dated 9-5-1978. The proceedings communicated to the respondent herein stated that the grantee shall produce the registration certificate of the vehicle with valid fitness certificate and valid insurance certificate with current tax paid together with a remittance of Rs. 500/being the authorisation fee by way of crossed bank draft in favour of the appellant herein within two months from the date of the receipt of the order, which time could be extended specially for valid and adequate reasons on specific requests, failing which the sanction accorded was liable to be revoked. The respondent herein on 13-5-1978 received the said proceedings. The respondent remitted a sum of Rs. 500/- bei...
The Madras English Baptist Church, Represented by the Minister and Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ485
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of V. Ramaswami, J., made in W.P. No. 2478 of 1979 filed by the appellant herein. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the Court may deem fit, to quash the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu made in G.O. Ms. No. 2037, Education, dated 13th November, 1978. This Government Order stated:Whereas the State Government is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the supervision and control of the Matriculation Schools preparing candidates for the entrance examination to the University of Madras.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Madras University Act (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1923), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the University of Madras shall cease to exercise any control over the recognition of the Matriculation Schools.2. The appellant herein is the Madr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »