Chennai Court October 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Inland Agencies P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)174; [1983]143ITR186(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the capital gains arising out of the receipt by the assessee of Rs. 15,168 from the liquidator of the United India Life Insurance Company during the accounting year ending December 31, 1969, chargeable under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the proportionate cost of acquisition of the shares held by the assessee in the said company attributable to the said sum of Rs. 15,168 is to be deducted (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled for the deduction permissible under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the donation of Rs. 5,000 made by it to 'S.R.M.M.C.T.M. TIRUPPANI TRUST' for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee, a private limited company, held 80 fully paid-up shares in the United India Life Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. R. MalA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)10; [1982]135ITR302(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The 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 sum of Rs. 10,340 was not assessable under section 45 read with section 54 in the hands of the assessee ?'The assessee is the proprietrix of the business called Raju Real Estate. On September 3, 1969, she purchased a plot of land at 31, Bhagirathi Ammal Street, Madras-17, and constructed a building on the same costing Rs. 38,359. This building was used as a dwelling house till July 13, 1970, on which date it was sold for Rs. 49,000. She purchased on the same day another plot of land for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and put up a construction costing Rs. 63,000. She stayed in the said house till July 5, 1971, when she sold it for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. In making the assessment for the year 1971-72, the ITO brought to tax as short-term capital gains a sum of Rs. 10,641, being the excess realised on the sale of the house at 31, Bhagi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR315(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following common question have been referred by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-7 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire technical aid fees paid by the assessee to M/s Clayton Dewandre Company Ltd., U.K., and the royalty USA under the collaboration agreement should be allowed as a deduction (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cross-objections of the assessee would fall to be technically allowed as the Tribunal had upheld the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The assessee, is a company which was incorporated some time in 1962. Its busines is in the manufacture and sale of air-compressor equipments for automotive vehicles and industrial equipment. It entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s. Clayton Dewandre Company Ltd., U.K., on July 1, 1962, and another agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajan Vs. Devi Cine Proprietor, Manufacturing Company by Partner, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ79
S. Mohan, J.1. The defendant, who suffered a decree for possession in a suit filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 873 of 1975 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras which decree was confirmed on appeal in A.S. No. 100 of 1978, has come forward with this second appeal.2. The respondents herein leased out 4-112 grounds of vacant land adjoining Agasthya Theatre, belonging to them, comprising premises No. 3931394, Thiruvottiyur High Road in favour of the appellant herein. The lease was for a period of 11 months on a monthly rental of Rs. 360 from 20th August, 1971, One of the terms of the lease was that he should not put up any construction without the express permission of the landlord. The lease was renewed for a period of 11 months from 1st August, 1972, and for another 11 months from 1st July, 1973, and by efflux of time, it expired by 31st May, 1974. By Exhibits A-3 and A-5, the tenant was called upon to vacate; but he did not. Therefore, it became necessary on the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Vs. Sankaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ296
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The point regarding jurisdiction as well as the point relating to failure to give notice, do not weigh with this Court for admitting this civil revision petition at this stage of I.A. No. 141 of 1981. On the other hand by impleading a party, it should be held that notice is given such that he is given an opportunity to put forth his case before the Court. If he is not impleaded, then there may be grievance. But, in this case the party is now impleaded, and certainly there is going to be notice given on whatever that is alleged against him. Inasmuch as he has been now impleaded as a party, on that ground this civil revision petition cannot be admitted. The other point that is raised is that it is only Tiruchi Court which has got jurisdiction and institution of the suit in the Tirunelveli Court is beyond the scope, and what is more, it is now strangely argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ratio imbedded in Roy and Chatterjee (P.) Ltd. v. Sci...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Sound Caps Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)68; [1983]141ITR457(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to continuation of registration for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm consisting of four partners, viz., 1. Papanasa Nadar, 2. Paulraj Nadar, 3. Annamalai Nadar, and 4. Sunderaswamy. The share of each of these partners deferred and it is not material for our present purpose. The assessee filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuance of registration. This declaration was signed by the legal representative of the first partner, namely, Papanasa Nadar, who died, any by Paulraj and Annamalai. Sundaraswamy, the fourth partner, did not append his signature to the form. This form was filed on January 7, 1971, before the ITO. 3. By the end of December, 1972, the ITO by a letter dated December 11, 1972, pointed out that the declaration was defective and he afforded an opportunity to the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganeshar Aluminium Factory C/O. Jeewanlal (1929) Limited Vs. Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR68]; (1982)ILLJ159Mad
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Koshal, J., dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant even at the admission stage. The Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that under S. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal had full jurisdiction to set aside the punishment of dismissal and award a lesser punishment. 2. The writ petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash that part of the award dated 7-2-1977 in respect of one K. Gopal, whose termination of services by the management was set aside and ordered to be reinstated without back wages. The appellant is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of aluminum articles Purporting to exercise its power under the standing orders and the existing settlement to recruit necessary casual and temporary workmen as and when required the appellant re-employed two of its superannuated employees. This was objected to by the second respondent-worker's union. Actually when...
Tag this Judgment!Khanmal Vs. S. Ganapathy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC177(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In application No. 2737 of 1981, the applicant-plaintiff prays for the issuance of summons to the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Officer, Chepauk Circle, and the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (1), Group II, Enforcement, to give evidence and to cause the production of certain statements recorded from the defendant at the time of the raid on 17th May, 1977, and also the assessment file of Karkalayar Plastic Works for the year 1976-77. In application No. 3944 of 1980, the prayer is for the issuance of summons to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Choolai Assessment Circle, to give evidence and cause the production of the documents listed therein. 2. The suit was for the recovery of the amount borrowed by the defendant, Ganapathi Chettiar, for running his business Karkalayar Plastic Works amounting to Rs. 98,794-51. According to the plaintiff, his representative would sit in the defendant's factory and maintain an account of the day-to-...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajamanickam, for Himself and on Behalf of ors. Award Staff Vs. Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ367Mad
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, quashing the circular No. 2/8 dated 3-1-1978 issued by the Personnel Department of the respondent-Bank and directing them to give full credit to the salaries of the petitioner and other Award Staff affected under the circular in the month of December, 1977 in the petitioner's and other Award Staff's respective accounts in the respondent-Bank, without any deductions as stated in the circular dated 3-1-1978 issued by the Personnel Department of the respondent-Bank. 2. The prayer has come to be projected on the background of the following facts : The respondent-Bank is a nationalised Bank. The petitioner was an Award Staff working in the Harbour Branch of the respondent-Bank as a cashier. Pursuant to a call given by the All India Bank Employees' Association, the employees (Award Staff of all Nationalised Banks in the country) proposed to stage a demonstration for limited hours in December, 1977, dema...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Ahamed and Co., Madras and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad247
V. Ramaswami, J.1. W. P. No. 3834 of 1981 has been filed by 17 petitioners who are exporters of onions, praying for writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction forbearing the second respondent National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India Ltd., who are hereafter referred to for short as NAFED, 'from proceeding with its decision to export 50,000 tonnes of onions to Malaysia and Singapore solely through itself and the third respondent completely excluding the petitioner.'2. The first respondent to this petition is the Union of India. The second respondent is NAFED and the 3rd respondent is another exporter of onions. Kin Guan Choong Sendirian Berhad, a company incorporated under the Malaysian laws and having its registered office at Penang, Malaysia has impleaded itself as a party respondent on the ground that they are Importers in respect of the quantity of onions which is the subject matter in this writ petition.3. The export of onions Prior to 1974 was governed by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›