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.
The State Transport Authority Vs. S. Chinnaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ214
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of V. Ramaswami, J., dated 28th February, 1979, allowing W. P. No. 3909 of 1978.2. 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 9th May, 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 said proceedings were received by the respondent herein on 13th May, 1978....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)200; [1981]128ITR675(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the allowance of development rebate for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee is a company, which owns a tea plantation and also a tea factory. The assessment year under consideration is 1971-72, the previous year ending on March 31, 1971. In submitting the return for this year, the assessee claimed an allowance of Rs. 75,000 as development rebate under s. 33(1) of the Act. The ITO did not allow the claim on the ground that the machinery in respect of which this claim had been made, was only installed and had not been used in the year of account and that the amount would be allowed as a deduction in the next year when the machinery was actually brought into use. The assessee appealed to the AAC, who held that the assessee had fulfilled the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Tube Investments of India L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)344; [1981]129ITR75(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act : 'Whether the contributions of Rs. 6,303, Rs. 4,395, Rs. 3,457 and Rs. 22,910, being the amounts contributed by the assessee to the foreign superannuation fund and other funds to the credit of its employees during the relevant previous years, have been rightly allowed under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 ?' 2. The assessee carried on business in the manufacture and sale of cycles and cycle parts. In the returns filed for the years under consideration, the assessee deducted the contributions made by it to the superannuation fund, life insurance fund and Tube Investments Educational Policy Fund of M/s. Tube Investments Ltd., Birmingham, to the credit of the employees who were serving it in the relevant years. For instance, taking the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee had the benefit of the services of one...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Dhandayuthapani Foundry ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)938; [1980]123ITR709(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the centrifugal pumps and motors constitute agricultural implements 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the grant of higher development rebate and deduction under section 80I and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'margin amount' paid by the assessee is loss incidental to the carrying on of business of the assessee and that it should be allowed as revenue loss ?' 2. We shall take up for consideration the first two questions before going into the third question. The assessee claimed relief under s. 80I of the I.T. Act and also higher development rebate of 35% under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Act on the ground tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Arumugham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: [1980]125ITR753(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In compliance with the direction of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three question: '(1) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the alleged commissioner payments were expenditure incurred by the assesses wholly and exclusively for his business and should be allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the payments of mamool were made by the assessee (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's allowance of deduction without verifying the genuineness of payment is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as stevedoring contractors to M/s. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd. and Food Corporation of India at the Madras port. It claimed deduction of payments of commissioner said to h...
Mahi Traders Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: [1980]45STC327(Mad)
1. All these cases involve the same point and are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in T.C. Nos. 894 and 895 of 1977 is one and the same and these tax revision cases are concerned with assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1973-74. The tax revision cases have been preferred against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Madras, dated 26th February, 1977, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kancheepuram. T.C. No. 591 of 1979 has been preferred by the State against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench) dated 14th December, 1978, in respect of the assessment for the year 1976-77 dealing with another assessee. W.P. Nos. 4951 and 4952 of 1978 have been filed by the same assessee praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition. The two writ petitions have been filed, one in respect of the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sal...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Madras-i Vs. P. V. S. K. Palania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)347; [1980]125ITR357(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The following questions have been referred by the Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 365 to 370 of 1975:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation at more than 7% on the machinery utilised by it in the aerated water factory ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 154 would apply to the assessees case ?3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 154 was not applicable without the Appellate Tribunal deciding the correct rate of depreciation that should be granted on the machinery used for manufacture of aerated water ?'The assessee is a manufacturer of aerated water under the trade name 'Kali Mark'. It has a factory at Virudhunagar. In the original assessment made for each of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Mother India Fire and Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Mad)221; [1980]123ITR477(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Rs. 2,68,056 made by the assessee-company to meet the loss of its fixed deposit and the interest accrued thereon with Messrs. Calicut Modern Spinning And Weaving Mills is an admissible deduction under rule 5(b) of the First Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that the expression 'investment' contemplated in rule 5(b) would include the fixed deposit made by the assessee-company with Messrs. Calicut Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills is in accordance with the scheme of the Act and is sustainable in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest accrued on the deposit but not realised would also be an 'investment' under rule 5(b) and that the provision made to mee...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Universal Radiators P. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR531(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 33,333 received by the assessee as rent for lease of its machinery, Rs. 5,661 being the export incentive received by the assessee from the Government of India and Rs. 15,780.80 received by the assessee from Canara Bank as interest on the deposit of money could be treated as profit attributable to priority industry and would qualify for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 60,000 received by the assessee as rent for the lease of its machinery, Rs. 67,681 being the export incentive received by the assessee from the Government of India and Rs. 38,839.70, being the interest received by the assessee from Canara Bank on the moneys deposited therein, could be treated as profit attributable to t...
Sundaramoorthy and anr. Vs. Shanmugha Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad207
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of their half share in A schedule properties and for recovery of past and future profits. In the plaint, they claim that the properties mentioned in A sch. originally belonged to Subbammal, maternal grandmother of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 7 and 9 and she executed a registered Will on 18-5-1948 bequeathing the properties to her grandsons and appointing their mother as guardian and therefore each one of them secured one fourth share in the suit properties. The first plaintiff attained majority in May 1965 and the second plaintiff is still a minor. It is on attaining majority, the first plaintiff realised that the suit properties are in the possession of defendants 1 to 6 and 8, and therefore, the suit has been laid for the reliefs prayed for therein.2. Fifth defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 6 and 8, claiming that they have purchased items 6 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »