Chennai Court January 1981 Judgments
Valivalam Desikar High School Trust Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: [1981]131ITR84(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. An extent of 30 acres was the subject-matter of the deed of trust, dated October 21, 1959. From a reading of the copy of the document furnished, it is clear that the said extent had come to vest in the trustee, who is none else than the author of the trust and who must hold the lands and utilise the income therefrom for the purposes specified in the said deed. Subsequently under the deed, dated April 1, 1969, an extent of ac. 14.38 out of 30 acres was taken and was endowed to and in favour of the petitioner-school in these writ petitions. The petitioner-school is an autonomous body and has got a governing body of its own for its administration. What has been done in this case by the authorities concerned is, to club the two extents, viz., the extent of ac. 15.62 left over under the earlier deed of October 21, 1959, and the extent of ac. 14.38 endowed under the subsequent deed dated April 1, 1969, and pass the orders of assessment under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Dunlop India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC521(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. In these tax revision cases relating to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the liability to tax of the turnover representing what is stated as rubberisation of steel wheels and top rollers, arises for consideration. 2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing and dealing in tyres. They have entered into a contract with the Government of India for rubberising the wheels and top rollers and the consideration to be paid is described at a particular rate for each unit. The contract entered into was in a standard form used for supply of goods for sale. The wheels and top rollers are manufactured and supplied by Messrs. Wheels India Limited to the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi and the Central Vehicle Depot, Avadi, which are Government of India concerns. These wheels are intended for use in the construction of tanks for defence purposes. The wheels are delivered to the assessee for the purpose of rubberisation. The processes involved in rubberi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.N. Rajam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)85; [1982]133ITR75(Mad)
1. This case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal poses a problem in the simultaneous application of two provisions in the W. T. Act, 1957, namely, ss. 5(1)(iv), namely, ss. 5(1)(iv) and 2(m)(ii). The problem has arisen in a wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1971-72. Section 5(1)(iv), is it stood at the material time, exempted from wealth-tax one house or part of a house or part of a house owned and exclusively used by an assessee as his or her residence. This exemption, however, was subject to a monetary upper limit of Rs. 1,00,000. Section 2(m)(ii) deals with the computation of net wealth for purposes of levy of wealth-tax. This provision, inter alia, provides that while all debts owed by the assessee are deductible, debts secured on assets which are not chargeable to wealth-tax shall not be deducted. It is easy to visualize an illustrative case of an owner-occupied residential house worth less than Rs. 1,00,000 but subject to a subsisting mortgage. In such a case,...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT565(Mad)
ORDER1. The Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the first respondent herein, from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice No. V/16A/18/1/78/T. 2, dated 28-2-1978. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as follows : The petitioner manufactures passenger car tyres, truck tyres, tubes, tread rubber and other allied products. The petitioner has been marketing tread rubber in metal containers. With effect from 1-6-1968, tread rubber became assessable to excise duty on ad valorem basis under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) and the petitioner has been paying the said duty on the tread rubber. In the beginning the price list submitted by the petitioner for tread rubber for purposes of assessment of excise duty included the value of the metal...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund Vs. Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad138
1. This revision arises out of proceedings under the Stamp Act, 1899,for under-valuation of an instrument of conveyance for purposes of stamp duty. The conveyance was executed under an instrument dated 24-9-1976. The vendor is a public limited company by name Nonsuch Tea Estates Ltd., Coonoor (hereinafter called 'Nonsuch'). The purchaser is a private limited company, by name, Mahavir Plantations Pte, Ltd., (hereinafter called 'Mahavir'). The subject matter of the conveyance comprised three tea estates by name Prospect Estate, Liddledale Estate and - Seaforth Estate. Although the transaction covered the entire plantations in all the three estates, as going concerns, the document was executed only in respect of the lands as such and other items of immovable property. The lands conveyed under the instrument were of the total extent of 6029-76-1/2 acres. Of this extent, Prospect and Liddledale estates covered 3508.83-1/2 acres; the Seaforth estate covered 2520.93 acres. The total considera...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Chits and Investments (P.) Ltd., Represented by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ472
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 7689 of 1976, 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in these Civil Revision Petitions. A decree was obtained on 7th February, 1978, for a sum of Rs. 6,692 by the petitioner against: the respondents herein and in order to realise the amount due under the decree, the petitioner, on 10th December, 1979, filed an application for execution as well in E.P. No. 33 of 1980. While so, on 21st March, 1980, two applications were filed by the respondents herein E. A. Nos. 1674 of 1980 and 1674 of 1980 in E.P. No. 33 of 1980, purporting to be under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying for an extension of time to pay the balance of the decree amount in 10 months and also for raising the order of attachment ordered in E.P. No. 33 of 1980. Those applications were opposed by the petitioner. Even so the executing Court granted six month's time to the respondents herein to pay the decree amount and consequently, directed...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramakrishna and Sons Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: [1984]149ITR554(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The main point in this group of income-tax references concerns the claim of the assessee concerned for grant of development rebate on certain new machinery and plant and also the claim to deduct expenses and losses connected with that new unit. The assessee is a managing agency company. It was the managing agent of a public company called 'K.C.P. Ltd.' In 1954, the assessee promoted a wholly-owned subsidiary of K.C.P. Ltd. called 'Ramakrishna Basic Industries Corporation Ltd.' This subsidiary was formed to run a factory for producing cast iron pipes. This new company got an industrial license from the Central Government for that purpose. It had also imported machines from abroad. But that company for various reasons could not set up the factory and install and work those machines. The assessee took over those machines at cost and installed them in a factory built by it. The machines were to be run on electricity. The assessee had no power connection for its fact...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Natarajan Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pollachi West
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC193(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Padmanabhan, J., dated 9th April, 1980, dismissing W.P. No. 3614 of 1977. The appellant herein filed the writ petition in question praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent herein from taking any action on proceedings pursuant to his pre-assessment notice, T.N.G.S.T. 7607/70-71 dated 28th September, 1977. For the purpose of understanding the form of the prayer in which the relief is asked for it is necessary to set out certain facts. The appellant herein is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, and he has been assessed to sales tax for the year 1970-71 by the assessment order dated 3rd January, 1972. Subsequent to this date certain enquiries were made on the basis of information received by the department that the appellant herein had been carrying on certain business under benami names. After recording statements from others as well as from the appellant himself on 26th March, 1976,...
Tag this Judgment!Kushiram Baharilal Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC93(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee was originally assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1962-63 by an order dated 7th December, 1964. It was later found that out of the total taxable turnover, a turnover of Rs. 3,30,483.46 was not covered by valid C form and that therefore they were liable to be taxed at 7 per cent. Accordingly a reassessment notice was issued on 28th February, 1968, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why this turnover should not be taxed at 7 per cent. The petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order on 31st March, 1968. The writ petition itself was ultimately dismissed on 4th August, 1971. Thereafter, the assessing officer made a reassessment order on 15th April, 1972, subjecting this turnover of Rs. 3,30,483.46 to tax at the rate of 3 per cent, again making a mistake in the rate of taxation. The assessee preferred an appeal on the ground that before making the order dated 15th April, 1972, he was not given an opportun...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Abdul Latif and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1981
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC350; 1983LC55D(Madras); 1985(22)ELT758(Mad)
Ismail, C.J. 1. This batch of writ petitions involves the interpretation of a notification of the Government of India dated 18th June, 1977, issued in the Department of Revenue and Banking, New Delhi, bearing G.S.R. No. 176/77-C.E. The said notification reads as follows : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year, by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories from the whole of the duty of excise leviable therein, if an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the goods, under clearances, are manufact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »