Chennai Court November 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Malayalee Stores Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC3(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this sales tax revision, the question is whether sale of eucalyptus trees is sale of firewood. If it is, it would be exempt from taxation. 2. Sale of firewood is exempted from sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The exemption is granted by the State Government in exercise of a power in that regard conferred by the statute. The order of exemption is notified in the Gazette under Notification No. II(1)/Rev/386(g)/74 dated 4th March, 1974. The notification simply says that the Governor is pleased to exempt from sales tax 'firewood'. 3. The claim for exemption under this notification arises in this way : The assessee is a forest coupe contractor. In a forest auction the assessee purchased eucalyptus and other trees as a coupe. He felled the eucalyptus trees and sold them to one P. R. Lakshmi, who is described as a pulpwood contractor. The eucalyptus trees purchased by her were then cut to X size and also debarked. The timber pieces so fashi...
Victory Laminations Vs. Plastolite Industries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad243; (1982)1MLJ105
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 2026 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff in the suit wanted to recover back a sum of Rs. 20,000, being the principal and interest of the amount advanced to the defendant by means of a cheque. The defendant is Messrs. Victory Laminations represented by its partner T. Jayaraman. It raised various contentions in the written statement. The said suit is pending and the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 15485 of 1980 for issue of notice under Order 8-A of the Civil Procedure Code to one T. Shanmugham and S. Jayalakshmi. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner herein has alleged that these parties were partners of Victory Laminations and even before they left the partnership, this cheque was issued by the plaintiff in the suit. It is further contended by the petitioner that these two persons who are sought to be impleaded as respondents are liable to indemnify the petitioner herein...
S. Rajalakshmi Vs. D. Satyamurthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ3
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 2693 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, for recovery of certain jewels and also for the past and future maintenance. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has also filed O.P. No. 285 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Madras for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. C.M.P. No. 914 of 1981, was filed by the first respondent herein before the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras, praying for the transfer of the suit pending before the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, to the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Jujdge, Madras, to be tried along with O.P. No. 285 of 1981. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on the facts and circumstances of this case, ordered the transfer as prayed for. It is against this order, the petitioner who is the wife of the first respondent herein, has ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. T.K. Perumalswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: [1984]150ITR600(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This consolidated reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relates to penalty proceedings in connection with the assessments for two different years on the same assessee. The penalties were levied in the first instance by the IAC. He dealt with the two assessment years independently in two separate orders of penalties in a common order. They discussed the case for penalty in the two years almost in identical terms. We would, however, prefer to consider the penalties separately in respect of each assessment year. 2. The assessee involved in the penalty proceeding is a registered partnership firm. The two connected assessments were for 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively. The penalty for 1963-64 was invoked in the reassessment proceedings. The penalty for 1964-65 was involved in the original assessment itself. For 1963-64, the assessee's original return in the original assessment proceedings disclosed an income of Rs. 47,086. The accompanying statements showed...
The Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works) and anr. Vs. A. Chengalv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ250
V. Ramaswami, J.1. On certain allegations of corruption, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for a detailed enquiry. The Tribunal framed four charges. All of them related to incidents of corruption. After a detailed enquiry, the Tribunal held that Charges 1, 2 and 4 had been established and recommended that the respondent might be dismissed from service. A show cause notice against the proposed punishment of dismissal was thereupon issued by the Chief Engineer (Highways) who was the appointing authority, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and after considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, in his proceedings, dated 12th February, 1970, the Chief Engineer dismissed the respondent from service. Against the order of dismissal of the Chief Engineer, the respondent filed W.P.No.681 of 1970. The main attack on the validity of the order at that stage was that only a portion o...
Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (South) Z ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2285
1. Seven accused faced a trial for offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(ii)(a) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 33638 of 1975. Accused 1 to 5 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. A-6 and A-7 were found guilty of the offences with which they were charged; A-7 was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under each count in default to suffer R.I. for three months and A6 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under each count. 2. The complainant, namely, the Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, South Zone, Madras-1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1977 to enhance the punishment imposed on accused 6 and 7 Tr. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1978 has been filed by Accused 6 and 7 challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on them. 3. The case of the prosecu...
South India Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)1; [1982]135ITR322(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question in this reference is whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax in canceling the grant of development rebate granted to the assessee during the assessment years in question. 2. Development rebate under the I.T. Act, 1961, is a capital allowance, like depreciation allowance. It is an allowance granted to the assessee on the cost of plant and machinery which are installed for the business. But, unlike depreciation which is operative year after year on the same machinery at a certain percentage on the written down value of the machinery, development rebate is an once-and-for-all allowance granted in the year of installation alone. Besides, the grant of development rebate is hedged in with special conditions and restrictions. One of the conditions is that the assessee must create a development rebate reserve equivalent to 75 percent.of the development rebate to be granted. That reserve must not be eroded by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu I Vs. V. Ramakrishna and Sons P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Mad)78; [1982]135ITR56(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - The Commissioner of Income-tax has questioned in this reference the cancellation of a penalty levied by the ITO under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of the return by the assessee-company for the year 1966-67. The Tribunal found that the delay was only of a period of 3 months. Before the filing of the return in this delayed fashion, the assessee-company has applied to the ITO for extension of time, but that request for extension had been refused by the ITO.In the penalty proceedings, the ITO referred to the fact that the assessees application for extension of time for filing the return has been rejected, and proceeded to hold that there was no reasonable cause for the delay in the submission of the return beyond the time appointed under the Act. On appeal, the AAC went in some detail into the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay. The assessee had submitted before him that during the year in question, assessees conce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›