Chennai Court November 1981 Judgments
The Secretary Spencer and Company Limited Vs. the Additional Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ253
P.R. Gokulakrishnam, O.C.J.1. Messrs. Spencer and Company Limited, is the appellant and the second respondent is their employee. He underwent a cataract operation in the year 1974, and after three month's rest reported to duty and was working in Reserve Stock Godown as a Clerk. In 1976 he was sent to the Bakery department and was preparing bills and maintaining stock registers etc. On 25th March, 1976 he was directed to report to the Company's Medical Officer for examination. The Company's Medical Officer referred him to an Opthalmologist who gave a certificate that the second respondent 'will have great difficulty in doing normal clerical work'. On the bassis of the certificate, the services of the second respondent came to be terminated. The employee (second respondent) filed an appeal to the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Scope and Establishments Act, 1947 challenging the order of termination, and the order was set aside. Against this, the appellant filed a w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (Central) Vs. Devi Films (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)341; [1983]143ITR386(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At this instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and in pursuance of the directions of this court, two questions have been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The first of them is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and in the light of the entries contained in the accounts of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the commission added to the assessee's income for the respective assessment years ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It derives income, inter, alia, from film distribution and financing. We are concerned with the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. The relevant accounting years are the Tamil Years. The assessee had entered into an agreement with the Matha Pictures on September 31, 1962. Matha Pictures was producing a Kannada film called 'Sakthi Sakthi'. While the film was in the process of produc...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Rajarathnam Vs. T. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad189
1. This case comes before us on a reference by Swamikkannu J. The question is whether in a revision filed under Sec 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. the revision petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the appellate authority for purposes of limitation, Since the learned Judge felt some difficulty in the matter, he referred the question to be decided by a Bench.2. Under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act), proceedings in the first instance are heard and determined by the Rent Controller. Against any order passed by the Rent Controller, See. 23 of the Rent Control Act provides for an appeal to an appellate authority~ From an order passed by an appellate authority, a revision lies to this court under See. 25 of the Rent Control Act It has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision that notwithstandi...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Kannappan Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ18
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 767 of 1979 in O.S. No. 1.31 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, seeking to scale down the decree debt in respect of the decree in O.S. No. 131 of 1971, as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Act TV of 1938, as amended by Act VIII of 1973. The case of the civil revision petitioner/first defendant/judgment-debtor, before the lower Court is that his father had made certain payments, set out in paragraph 8 of the order of the lower Court, towards interest and principal in respect of the debt prior to the decree and as such those payments will have to be adjusted towards the principal as per Section 8 of Act IV of 1938, as amended by Act VIII of 1973. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per Section 19(2) of the Act, he is entitled to come forward with an application for scaling down, even after the passing of the decree.2. The decree-holder, who i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR540(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this income-tax reference is a film distribution company. The assessee owns certain land and owns certain buildings within the limits of Madras City. As for the lands, the assessee was liable to urban land tax. As for the buildings, the assessee was liable to pay municipal property tax. 2. In so far as urban land tax was concerned, although the relevant statute was passed in 1966 and it imposed urban land tax retrospectively with effect from July 1, 1963, there were court proceedings in which the validity of that Act was in question. The Act was held to be valid ultimately by the decision of the Supreme Court in Asst. Commr. of Urban Land Tax v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. : [1970]75ITR603(SC) . When once the Supreme Court declared the Act to be valid, the assessee as owner of urban land was clearly chargeable to urban land tax. The liability started from July 1, 1963, onwards. For a period of 7 years or so it amounted to Rs. 64,222. In the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Late T.S. Srinivasa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR526(Mad)
1. This reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, raises a question about the deduction of urban land tax liability as an admissible allowance in the computation of the profits of a joint family business. The facts and circumstances in which the question arises need some elaboration. The assessee-family in this case was a father and son joint family. They carried on business in film making. They ran a cinema studio in Madras. This business possessed assets of various kinds. Amongst them were lands in Madras city, both built and unbuilt. The assessee-family was liable for urban land tax on these lands. The charge to urban land tax is laid under the Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1966), for every fasli year beginning from July 1, 1963. Actually, however, this fiscal Act had a lot of starting trouble. There was a delay of many years in the making of assessments, and in the raising of the tax demand on the owners of urban lands, right from 1963 onwards. This was due to the pende...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Nadar Press Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR39(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this case is about a deduction granted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for an item of expenditure in the computation of business profits. 2. Normally, questions of this kind, although briefly worded, m would give us an idea of the nature of the controversy. Not so in this case. The question does not tell us what it is about. All it asks us to decide is : 'Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 63,880 was a proper deduction ?' 3. We have, therefore, to turn to the order of the Tribunal and advert to their findings first. 4. The assessee in this case is a printing press at Sivakasi. The press has a labour force of 77 workemen. In 1971 the assessee brought about an agreement with these people. Under the terms of the agreement, all the employees working in the press were to be treated as having been discharged on March 31, 1971, in consideration of the payment made to them calculated at the rate of 15 days' wages f...
Tag this Judgment!Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR340(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This case raise a point about the computation of capital under Sch. II of the Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. The point arises this way. The assessee is company with calendar year as its account year. Out of the profits for the year ended December 31, 1970, the assessee decided to credit Rs. 13,32,992 to the company's general reserve. Having done do, the directors recommended that a divided be declared for th year ended December 31, 1970, at a rate which worked out to a total commitment of Rs. 2,03,250. They decided to declare and pay the divided from out of the general reserves. The board's recommendation was on May 4, 1971. the general body met and approved of the dividend on June 16, 1971. The divided wa actually distributed subsequently, but before the close of the year ended December 31, 1971. 3. In the assessment of the assessee to surtax for 1972-73, relevant to the year ended December 31, 1971, the assessee, s capital as on January 1, 1971, had t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamoorthy Thondaman Vs. D. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ57
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 395 of 1973 in the Court of the District. Munsif, Mannargudi. The plaintiff is the trustee of Sri Subramania Swamy, Temple and its Nandavanam Kattalai, Needamangalam. The suit lands, which belongs to the said temple, were leased out to one Raghurama Thondaman, brother of the defendant. As he fell in arrears of rent, the plaintiff instituted eviction proceedings against Raghurama. During the pendency of that petition, Raghurama and the plaintiff were said to have entered into a compromise, as a result of which, Raghurama surrendered possession of the lands. According to the plaintiff, he has been carrying on personal cultivation of the suit lands thereafter. As there was some threat of interference in the cultivation of the lands by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit. According to the plaintiff, Raghurama has set up the defendant, his brother, to give trouble to the plaintiff.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. Mettur Spinning Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Mad)76; [1983]140ITR991(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Two questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in this case. The first question is a follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,09,661 being the provision made for gratuity payable, but relating to the past assessment years, should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The facts bearing on this question may be briefly stated. The assessee-firm was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of yarn. It had a number of workers on its pay-roll. There was a settlement between the workers and the assessee under which a gratuity scheme was to be formulated and then implemented. In accordance with that gratuity scheme, the assessee made a provision of Rs. 5,80,892 in its account year ended July 31, 1970. This amount was claimed as an admissible deduction in the computatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »