Chennai Court November 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)202; [1985]156ITR828(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Two questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our consideration. The first question is is as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts deducted under the provisions of section 80G, 80L and 80M formed part of the total income for income-tax assessment and that, therefore, the capital should not be reduced by the amounts referable to such deduction under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The answer to this question is covered by a decision of this court in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. : [1977]110ITR131(Mad) . Following that decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and against Revenue. 3. The second question for our opinions is in the following terms : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the proviso to section 2(8) of the Companies (...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohideen HussaIn Jaffer, Licencee Andavar Match Works, Kovilpatti, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT763(Mad)
1. In this batch of cases the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent, viz, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') dated 18th December, 1979. The petitioners are manufacturers of safety matches under relevant licences issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. By Notification No. 154 of 1975 dated 3rd June, 1975 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted matches in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power and cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs. 4.30 per gross boxes of 50 matches each. But there is a proviso to this notification which reads that in the case of matches referred to in category 2 and cleared for home consumption during a financial year by a manufacturer from a fact...
Tag this Judgment!N.E. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. C.N. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ195
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, has allowed the Application viz., E.A. No. 2151 of 1980 in E.P. No. Ill of 1978 in O.S. No. 746 of 1978 filed under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XIII of 1980) and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the judgment-debtor. The two sentences order of the lower Court r ads as follows:Income certificate produced. Petition allowed.2. Even at the outset it is to be observed that what that income certificate was and under what provision it was produced before the lower Court and why on the basis of the same the application had been allowed are all a mystery.3. It is really strange that such two sentences order has been passed by the lower Court when an application has been filed under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XIII of 1980 as amended by Act XXXV of 1980 and Act X of 1980). Section 4(1)(c) of the said enactment reads as follows:all suits and other ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ahamed Mohideen and ors. and Syed Badruzsamman and anr. Vs. Moham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ203
S. Mohan, J.1. Both these second appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. Defendants 13, 14, 15 and 19 in O.S. No. 3696 of 1972 on the file of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 650 of 1981 and defendants 5 and 6 in the said suit are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 894 of 1981. The facts are as under:2. The dispute relates to the right of management in respect of Saint Syed Moosa Shah Kadiri Darga in Madras. One Syed Mohideen Sahib was in management. He had two sons by name Syed Ismail Sahib and Syed Gulam Dasthagir Sahib. The right bf management was divided between the two sons, each taking six months. This was on the basis of a judgment of this Court in C.S. No. 116 of 1909. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 19 belonged to the branch of Syed Gulam Dasthagir, whose right of management was in the months of February, March, June, July, October, and November. On the death of Syed Gulam Dasthagir, the ri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Crompton Engineering Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: (1983)31CTR(Mad)347; [1983]140ITR320(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - This reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raises a point about the treatment of a so-called reserve for gratuity in the computation of capita under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.The question arose in the assessment of M/s. Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Ltd. They claimed that a sum of Rs. 7,75,000 which figured as a 'reserve' for gratuity on the liability side of their balance-sheet as on December 31, 1961, must be reckoned as part of the their capital for purpose of capital computation under the Second Schedule to the Act. The ITO rejected the assessee claim. His reason for doing so, along with similar reasons for disallowing the assessee claim under another head, were as under:'The reserve for gratuity of Rs. 7,75,000 and the reserve for bad and doubtful debt of Rs. 48,872 cannot, in my opinion, be termed as reserves. In fact, the assessee itself has shown the reserve for gratuity as a provisions of gratuity and has includ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Subramanian Vs. S. Chockalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad6
ORDER1. The Regional Transport Authority preferred the revision petitioner for the grant on the ground that even though applicant No.5 Secured equal marks as applicant No.1 he has become a bus operator by getting permits on transfer recently and his performance has to be watched before any fresh permit can be granted. Aggrieved by this order, the matter was taken up by the respondent in appeal (AppNo. 231 of 1977) to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the workshop of the revision petitioner did not conform to Rule 155-A (2)(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, and, therefore, it reduced two marks, as a result of which the marks of the revision petitioner came to 8. Under these circumstances, obviously having regard to the superiority of the marks and there being nothing to be said against respondent that it would not be in the public interest to make a grant in his favour, the grant in favour of the revision petitioner was set aside. and the respondent was favou...
Tag this Judgment!Periya Angammal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ98
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioners challenge the notification under Section 4(1), the declaration under Section 6 and the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The lands in question were held by one Rangasami Gounder and the petitioner in W.P. No. 5559 of 1979. The said Rangasami Gounder died even on 15th December, 1975. The first petitioner in W.P. No. 5558 of 1979, is the daughter and the second petitioner is the grandson of the said Rangasami Gounder, through the first petitioner. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 10th January, 1979. Records produced disclose that the public notice of the substance of such notification was given in the locality as enjoined by the later part of Section 4(1) of the Act, read with rule 1 of the State Rules. No objection was received at the instance of the petitioners pursuant to such notification. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was pu...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagaraja Traders Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras-5
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC137(Mad)
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. In all these petitions the same firm is the petitioner. In the petitions it is prayed that the place of business of the petitioner and the residence of the managing partner were inspected by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Thanjavur, and other officers on 3rd March, 1976, and that they recovered anamath accounts for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76. On the seizure of the records, the inspecting officers have recorded a statement from the petitioner's managing partner, and thereafter proceeded to initiate action under section 45(2)(cc) for contravention of section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act). The authorities, on the basis of the so-called admission, proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for each accounting year as if the petitioner had asked for compounding the offence. 2. In these petitions, the first point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in so far as W.P. No. 5765 is...
Tag this Judgment!P. Srinivasulu Vs. Shanthi Traders and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad126
1. The landlord is the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 785 of 1981 and respondent in C. R. P. 1993 of 1981. There are two different tenants one of whom is the petitioner in C. R. P. 1993 of 1981, and the other tenant is the respondent in C. R. P. 785 of 1981. For purpose of convenience, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The landlord was carrying on a partnership business in iron and steel in a rented premises at Thathamuthiappan Street. He purchased the petition-building at Govindappa Naicken Street on 7-10-1978. The previous owner of the building was using the first floor for residence and was carrying on business in the ground floor. The landlord also wanted to use the building in the same way, viz., first floor for residential purposes and the ground floor for purposes of his business. The landlord occupied the first floor for residential purpose. The ground floor consisted of four shops. The landlord is in occupation of one of the shops by storing th...
Tag this Judgment!Rakkayi Ammal Vs. Murugaiyyan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ255
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 413 of 1974 under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, dated 30th August, 1980 in E.A. No. 473 of 1980. It is relevant in this connection to note that this application E.A. No. 473 of 1980 had been entertained by the lower court under Order 21, Rule 72(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said rule reads as follows:72-A (1) Notwithstanding anything con tained in Rule 72, a mortgagee of immovable proporty shall not bid for or purchase property sold in execution of a decree on the mortgage unless the Court grants him leave to bid for or purchase the property.(2) If leave to bid is granted to sucb mortgagee, then the Court shall fix a reserve price as regards the mortgagee, and unless the Court otherwise directs the reserve price shall be(a) not less than the amount then due for principal, interest and costs in respect of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »