Chennai Court December 1980 Judgments
Charag Chemical Industries by Partner, N. Rajagopal, Industrial Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1980
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ53
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras in W. C. Case No. 106 of 1977, on an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the respondent was that his son G. Karuna-nidhi was a workman, employed in the factory of the appellant herein on a monthly wage of Rs. 150 and that on 28th June, 1977, G. Karunanidhi received injuries in the course of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which later resulted in his death on the same day. The injury, according to the respondent, was sustained by his son while he fell down from the ceiling in the arid tub during the course of his employment. claiming that the respondent is a denendant of late G. Karunanidhi and as surh entitled to a lump sum coriipensatipn. to a sum of Rs. 13,500, the respondent herein filed an application in W.C. Case N...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjappa Textiles and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: [1985]153ITR109(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the return filed on October 5, 1968, could be construed as a return under section 139(5) and the assessment made on September 22, 1969, for the assessment year 1964-65 is not barred by limitation ?' 2. The relevant facts are in a very short or narrow compass. The assessee is a firm, which was served with a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act on July 20, 1964, in relation to the assessment year 1964-65, calling for the submission of the return of its income. The return should have been filed on or before August 19, 1964. The assessee filed the return on December 14, 1964, disclosing an income of Rs. 26,593. On October 5, 1968, it filed a revised return admitting an income of Rs. 27,900. The assessment was completed on September 22, 1969. 3. In the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: [1983]54STC164(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Board of Revenue dated 29th December, 1976. The assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1971-72 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in due course. It had claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 21,85,920 relating to sales of mango juice exported to the U.S.S.R. This exemption was allowed by the assessing authority. The assessment was reopened, and the sum of Rs. 21,62,725.51 was added in the assessment by an order dated 3rd July, 1974. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the inclusion of this turnover was disputed and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the plea of the assessee and allowed the claim. 2. The Board took suo motu revision proceedings, as it considered that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner acted erroneously in granting exemption on the said turnover. In the view of the Board, the sales were only local sales exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Machine Works Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC342(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. T.C. (A) No. 1393 of 1977 is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue for the assessment year 1969-70. The others are revision petitions filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30th June, 1977, and 1st November, 1977. The order dated 1st November, 1977, relates to the assessment year 1972-73, while the others relate to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. For the assessment year 1972-73, there are two appeals, one against the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act. All these cases raise certain common contentions and, therefore, they can be disposed of together here. 2. For the assessment year 1970-71 the assessee, a manufacturer of textile and the machinery, was granted exemption on the turnover of Rs. 46,41,305 on account of export sales of machinery to the State Trading Corporation. On a re-examination of the facts it was considered that there were two independent ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Valliammai and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR713(Mad)
V. Ramanujam, J. 1. One Ramanathan Chettiar, who owned considerable movable and immovable properties, died on January 26, 1958, leaving behind him his wife, Srimathy Umayal Achi, and his daughter, Srimathy Valliammai, as his legal heirs. On his death, the properties devolved upon the aforesaid two persons in equal shares. A partition was effected between them under which certain properties were allotted to Umayal Achi and the rest Valliammai. Umayal Achi adopted one Arunachalam in April, 1961. She later died on August 20, 1964, leaving a will bequeathing all he properties to her adopted son, Arunachalam. 2. During the previous year ending with March 31, 1966, Arunachalam sold 9.0111 grounds in the property known as 'Green Field House Site' for Rs. 99,500. During the previous year ending with March 31, 1967, he sold a bunglow and site at Kodambakkam High Road, of the extent of 15 grounds and 1,400 sq.ft. to the American Embassy for Rs. 6,00,000 and a plot of land measuring 7.2040 ground...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Match Factory and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Satt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1980
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT99(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitioners are small scale match manufacturing units who are not given the benefit of Notification GSR No. 99 of 1980-Central Excise, dated 19-6-1980. They have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other Writ or appropriate direction directing the respondents to give the benefit to them of the said Notification without reference to the first and the second provisos to the said Notification by reason of which the Petitioners were not able to claim the concession. Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 imposes excise duty on manufacture in respect of items mentioned in the first schedule to the Act. Matches are mentioned in item No. 38 of the schedule and the duty is leviable on the manufactured matches at the rates specified therein. In exercise of the rule-making powers under the Act, the Central Government have made the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 8 provides that the Central Government may, from time to time, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Vs. Rukmaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad205
1. The first defendant in 0. S. No. 1484 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent is the Plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in that suit. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts, which have given rise to the litigation, in detail. The Plaintiff wanted a declaration of her title and recovery of possession from the first defendant on the basis of a deed dated 19th July 1954, the original of which has been marked as Ex. B-1. That deed was executed by the father of the Plaintiff, Thandavaraya Pillai. The very same Thandavaraya Pillai, under Ex. B-9 dated 24th September 1966, conveyed the Property to the first defendant. There was an earlier Proceeding for eviction instituted by the first defendant against Thandavarava Pillai before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli. and pursuant to the orders obtained therein, possession has been obtained by the first defendant. However the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Vs. Rukmaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ315
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 1484 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli is the appellant and the second respondent is the second defendant in that suit. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts which have given rise to the litigation in detail. The plaintiff wanted a declaration of her title and recovery of possession from the first defendant on the basis of a deed dated 19th July, 1954, the original of which has been marked as Exhibit B-1. That deed was executed by the plaintiff Thandavaraya Pillai. The very same Thandavaraya Pillai under Exhibit B-9, dated 24th September, 1966, conveyed the property to the first defendant. There was a proceeding for eviction instituted by the first defendant against Thandavaraya Pillai before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli and pursuant to the order obtained therein possession has been obtained by the first defendant. However, the plaintiff took proceedings under Order 21, rules 100 and 101 of the...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ravi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC274(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in stainlesswares. It appears that he started the manufacturing industry some time prior to 1974-75. His place of business was inspected on 10th October, 1975, by the sales tax authorities and it was found that he had effected sales to an extent of Rs. 37,975.60 during the year 1974-75 as per bills. He submitted his return after the inspection on 17th October, 1975, disclosing the total turnover as Rs. 37,975.60. This was a belated return. The assessing officer noticed that as per the books of account produced by the assessee the purchase value of the stainless steel was shown as Rs. 36,737.37 and the gross profit worked out only at 3 per cent. On the ground that the gross profit shown as per the accounts suggested sales omission, a pre-assessment notice was issued under section 12(2) proposing an addition of 20 per cent to the purchase value and determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 44.084.85 and calling for the dea...
Tag this Judgment!New Bharat Confectionery Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC140(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in confectionery. The turnover in dispute related to the sale of machine parts which were considered by the assessee as redundant and no longer useful. That the impugned transactions are inter-State sales is not in dispute. The only question for consideration was whether the turnover is liable to Central sales tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the turnover is not liable to sales tax on the ground that the assessee cannot be held to be carrying on business in selling this redundant capital stock. For that view the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Raipur . : [1967]1SCR618 . It was a case decided under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court held with reference to the definitions in that Act that in the turnover of a person carrying on business of selling one commodity will not be included the price received by him by sale of another commodity unle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »