Chennai Court October 1981 Judgments
A. Soundarapadian Nadar Vs. S. Madasamy Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ299
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent-landlords filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on three grounds, namely, wilful default in payment of rent, subletting the premises and requirement for their own use and occupation. The Rent Controller accepted the plea that there was wilful default, but rejected the other two grounds and ordered eviction on the first ground. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding with reference to wilfut defaultand dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant. Hence the revision.2. The point that arises for consideration is whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The rent for the premises is Rs. 1 75 per mensem and the tenancy commenced on 1st June, 1974. It is common ground that the tenant paid a heavy advance of Rs. 5,240 and later, a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the advan...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Yusuf and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad115; (1982)1MLJ245
ORDER1. The civil revision petitioners are the trustees appointed by the Court for the administration of the suit wakf in pursuance of a Scheme framed by the Court. The respondent in the civil revision petition is the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, represented by its secretary. The respondent filed an application before the trial Court for transfer of the absolute control of the wakf and its property for the day to day management, including the power to appoint muthavallis on the ground that after the passing of the Wakf Act 1954 the general superintendence of all wakfs vest in the Wakf Board under S. 15 (1) of the Act. The application was resisted on the ground that the wakf is not a wakf as defined under the Wakf Act, 1954 and the Wakf Board cannot administer such a wakf and the administration of wakf by the trustees appointed by the court has been above reproach and as such there is no necessity for interfering with the provisions of the Scheme framed by the Court. The trial Court held that...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Vs. D.R. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ298
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed an application for diction on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the portion in the occupation of the tenant is a non-residential portion comprised of an asbestos roof and cement flooring wherein the tenant is running a flour mill. The plea of the landlord is, he wants to pull down the building and construct a pucca structure for the purpose of his own occupation. The tenant resisted the application contending that the requirement is not bona fide and that the building does not require demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to find out the condition of the building and the Commissioner's report has been exhibited as Exhibit C-t. He then accepted the Commissioner's report as also the evidence of the landlord and found...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balakrishna Brick Works Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC251(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this case carries on the business of manufacture and supply of bricks from his kiln. For the assessment year 1974-75 the assessee was assessed to sales tax. The turnover determined by the assessing authority included transport charges which were separately charged by the assessee as against his customers. It was claimed by the assess that he was entitled to a deduction in respect of such charges, in accordance with rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessing authority did not accept this contention, but included the amount of transport charges as part of the taxable turnover. 2. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the Tribunal, that body came to the same conclusion as the assessing authority. The assessee has brought the present revision, being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal's order gives the reasons why the assessee was not considered entitled to a deduction in respect of the transpo...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Revenue Secretary to the G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ173
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, the defendant in O.S. No. 72 of 1970, on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, is the appellant herein.2. The father of the respondents filed the said suit for a declaration that he is the owner of 'kudiwaram' interest in the suit lands which were originally 'Zamin Tharisu Punja' in patta No. 401 bearing Paimash No. 358 corresponding to Section No. 869 measuring 704-88 acres situated in Sirumalai Village, Nilakottai Taluk which was originally in Ammayanaic-kenur Zamin, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. His case as set out in his plaint was as follows : An extent of 851 'kulis' (502.09 acres) was assigned on payment of 'nazir' at the rate of one 'panam' per 'kuli' by the erstwhile Zamindar of Ammaya-naickenur by means of an assignment order dated 31st December, 1945, and the plaintifi was in possession of the same. Patta No. 401 was also issued by th...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. New India Martine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR403(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. These references relate to the quantification of the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This question is now governed by a statutory provision retrospectively brought into force the effect from the commencement of the I.T. Act, 1961. After the retrospective amendment, the penalty leviable under s. 271(1)(a) is to be on a certain percentage of the assessed tax. An Explanation added by the retrospective amendment legislation defines 'assessed tax' as meaning 'tax as reduced by the sum, if any, deducted at source under Chap. XVII-B or paid in advance under Chap. XVII-C'. In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal expressed the view that in determining the amount of tax on which penalty under S. 271(1)(a) is to be calculated the tax paid by the assessee pursuant to a provisional assessment made under S. 141 should be excluded. Having regard to the terms of the Explanation which we have referred to, the only amounts which are to be deducted fro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. S.K. Sanjan Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR647(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, relates to the cancellation by that body of a penalty levied by the ITO on the assessee. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. The penalty was levied under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for delay in the submission of the return. The return was due for 1966-67, the year under consideration, on June 30, 1966, if it had been filed under s. 139(1) of the Act or at the latest it must have been filed on August 6, 1966, if it had to be considered as a return filed or to be filed under s. 139(2) of the Act. The actual date on which the assessee filed the return was January 9, 1967. The ITO initiated proceedings for a levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. He issued a notice to the assessee calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be levied. The assessee did not file any reply in response to that notice. The ITO thereupon proceeded to levy a penalty in the sum of Rs. 7,614. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopikishan and Ramkishan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: [1988]170ITR368(Mad)
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. The reference raises a rare question as to the allocation of the components of the total income of a registered firm as between the partners, on the one hand, and the minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership, on the other. The allocation, as made by the Income-tax Officer, was for the assessment year 1966-67. The allocation was as follows : Name of the Share Interest Business Speculation Otherpartner loss loss incomeRs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.R. S. Jhaver 0-7-0 - 9,77,647 9,11,285 3,04,797J. N. Daga 0-4-6 1,429 6,57,060 5,85,827 1,95,943Krishnagopal Jhaver,Srigopal Jhaver,Harigopal Jhaver, 0-4-6 4,138 - - 1,95,943Estate of RamgopalJhaver1-0-0 5,567 16,34,707 14,97,112 6,96,683 2. From the table given above, it will be seen that Krishnagopal Jhaver, Srigopal Jhaver and Harigopal Jhaver, all of whom are minors, have between them shares in the partnership to the extent of Re. 0-4-6. The firm was in receipt of income under the head 'other sources' and also 'interes...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasaraghavan Vs. Thiru Muthukaruppa Muthiriar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ135
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. This is a petition by the landlord against the order of the revenue Court condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of possession under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cjkivating Tenants' Protection from Eviction) Act XXXVI of 1976.2. The facts of the application are briefly these : The revision petitioner was the landlord and respondent herein was originally his tenant in respect of 1 56 acres of the land in Esaneikorari Village in Lalgudi Taluk. It is common ground that the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-paymeat of arrears of rent and an order of eviction was parsed after giving sufficient opportunity to the tenant. It would appear that the landlord executed the order of eviction and took delivery through Court. Later, the tenant seems to have middled with the possession and the landlord field a suit in O.S. No. 645 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiiuchirapalli, for pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Bush Boake Allen (India) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)6; [1982]135ITR306(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - This reference sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, raises a question as to the admissibility of legal and court expenses in the computation of the business income of a limited company. The expenses were incurred in the course of amalgamation. There were two companies, one called M/s. A. Boake Roberts and Company (India) Ltd. and another called W. J. Bush Products Ltd. Both of them were engaged in the manufacture and marketing of perfumery compounds, aromatic chemicals and essences. The companies wanted to amalgamate. The process of amalgamation involved W. J. Bush Products Ltd. going into liquidation with all its assets being taken over by the other company, viz., A. Boake Roberts and Company (India) Ltd., the latter emerging under a new name, M/s. Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd., Madras, after the amalgamation. The merger of the two business and the amalgamation of the two companies in the manner aforesaid involved legal expenses and court expenses, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »