Chennai Court December 1981 Judgments
N. Kandasamy Vs. Board of Revenue (Land Revenue) Chepauk, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad89
ORDER1. Petitioner being aggrieved with the order of the first respondent holding that the deed dated 20-8-1975, executed by Palaniswamy Pillai and three others, is only a settlement, within the meaning of S. 2(24)(C) of the Stamp Act, has filed this writ petition. The first respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner that stamp duty is leviable only under Art. 64 in Sch. I of the said Act.2. Mr. Balathandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that when orders have been passed by the first respondent determining that the duty is leviable only under Section 2(24)(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, and that only one half of the duty, would be payable in the light of the orders issued under (Item 47) G. O. Ms. No. 1225, Revenue dated 25-4-1964, it is for this Court to construe the document and decide the nature of the document, in exercising its powers under Article 226, of the Constitution of India.3. According to him, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Chief Cont...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kandasamy Alias K.K. Ram Vs. the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ420
T. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders of the first respondent holding that the deed, dated 20th August, 1975, executed by Palaniswamy Pillai and three others, is only a settlement, within the meaning of Section 2(24)(c) of the Indian Stamp. Act, has filed this writ petition. The first respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner that stamp duty is leviable only under Article 64 in Schedule I of the said Act.2. Mr. Balathandapani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that when orders have been passed by first respondent, determining that the duty is leviable only under Section 2(24)(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, and that only one half of the duty, would be payable in the light of the orders issued under (item 47) G.O.Ms. No. 1225, Revenue, dated 25th April, 1964, it is for this Court to construe the document and decide the nature of the document, in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. According to him, in the light of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Metal Industries Vs. K. Suseela Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ333
S. Mohan, J.1. The revision, lies in a short compass. The tenant aggrieved about the concurrent orders has preferred this revision. The respondent-landlady filed the petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation of the non-residential premises bearing door No. 201, Appa Rao Gardens, Sydenhams Road, Madras-7. The monthly rent is Rs. 1,000 for the non-residential purpose. The respondent's husband is carrying on timber business under the name and style of Ashok Timber Corporation in a rented premises at No. 196, Appa Rao Gardens, Sydenhams Road, Madras-7. Hence the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 18th September, 1978, terminating the tenancy by the end of March, 1979, calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate and surrender possession, to which there has been neither a reply, nor compliance with the demand. Thus, the petition for eviction.2. In the counter of the revision petitioner, it was contended that the respondent owns a non-res...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Vs. Vellaiya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ67
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. C.R.P. No. 3290 of 1980 is filed by the judgment-debtor against the dismissal of his application R.E.A. No. 376 of 1980 in O.S. No. 45 of 1974 claiming benefits under Act (XIII of 1980) while C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980 is filed against the dismissal of R.E.A. No. 407 of 1980 in E.P. No. 66 of 1980 in O.S. No. 45 of 1974, filed under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, to dismiss E.P. No. 66 of 1980 as the attachment of electric motor and pump-set is illegal. Since both the revisions arise out of the orders passed in the same execution petition and since the parties are the same, both the revisions are dealt with together. In C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980, two contentions are raised by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is, that when ' an execution petition is stayed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance (I of 1975), attachment cannot be ordered to continue. In effect, his argu...
Tag this Judgment!K.T.M.S. Umma Salma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR890(Mad)
Pasmanabhan, J.1. The assessee in this case Mrs. K. T. M. S. Umma Salma, Madras, purchased a land on September 28, 1966, for a sum of Rs. 45,000. She should have filed the return of income for the assessment year 1967-68, on or before June 30, 1967. On August 7, 1968, she returned an income of Rs. 37,397. The said amount represented the sum invested by her in the purchase of land as aforesaid. On the basis of the return filed by the assessee the assessment was completed on October 17, 1968. However, the ITo initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the I. T. Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the ACt). On August 26, 1970, the assessee wrote to the ITo stating that she was eligible for sympathetic consideration under s. 271(4A) of the Act. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee the ITO levied a penalty of rS. 2,577 against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the ACt. The assessee preferred I. T. A. No. 328/70-71, before the AAC, who confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Khivraj Motors Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Ct) Iv, Madras and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC141(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner-company is a dealer in motor cars, automobile spares and other allied items. It has opted for payment of sales tax on the basis of the monthly returns in form A-2. While re-examining the figures given in the monthly returns for the year 1977-78, it was discovered that there was a discrepancy in the monthly returns filed for the month of December, 1977, and therefore, on 28th July, 1981, it filed a revised return for the month of December, 1977. In accordance with the said revised return the petitioner also paid sales tax, surcharge and additional tax amounting of Rs. 66,698. On receipt of the revised return, the first respondent passed an order dated 31st August, 1981, under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act stating that the petitioner should have paid the amount of tax for December, 1977, on or before 25th January, 1978, and since the payment has been delayed from 25th January, 1978 to 28th July, 1981, the petitioner has to pay a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR462(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The questions of law which we are asked to answer in this gift-tax case relates to the valuation of unquoted shares in M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons and M/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. The valuation of the shares was made by the GTO on the basis of the break-up value method. The gift in this case was by the assessee-holder on March 28, 1972. The GTO took the balance-sheet of the two companies as at March 31, 1972, and applied the break-up value method on the net worth of the companies as on that date. On appeal, the Tribunal held that since the gift took place before the balance-sheet as at March 31, 1972, the break-up value method must be applied to the last balance-sheet before the dated of the gift, namely, the balance-sheet as at March 31, 1971. 2. The correctness of the method which found favour with the Tribunal is the subject-matter of the present reference. The question of law which has been referred to us in this case is at the instance of the Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Venu Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1981
Reported in: [1985]156ITR679(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question of law in this reference, which is under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'), is as follows : 'Whether it has been rightly held that shares of T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd. should be valued for gift-tax assessment at Rs. 107.34 per share and not at Rs. 134.82 per share ?' 2. The question for consideration is about the valuation of unquoted shares of a private company. The valuation in such cases is done by following the break-up value method. That is to say, the assets and liability of the company, whose shares have to be valued, would be taken into account first and the net worth of the company will be ascertained therefrom. Thereafter, the value of the individual shares will be determined. For arriving at the value of the company's assets and liabilities, the company's balance-sheet is usually referred to far relevant figures of valuation. 3. There shares, whose valuation falls for determination in this case, were gifted on a day which ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. A.C. Paul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: [1983]142ITR811(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in this case had business activities both in Ceylon and in India. He owned properties in both the countries. In the course of his assessment for 1964-65, the ITO found that the assessee had made investments in his name as well as in the names of his wife and son. Investments were made to the extent of Rs. 1,05,850. When the assessee was asked to explain the source for those investment which were not to be found in the account books kept by the assessee, it was explained that the monies had come from out of the savings from his agricultural income. It was also explained that dividends from shares which had not been brought into the books also accounted for a portion of the investments. In addition, the assessee explained that whenever his wife or sons travelled from Ceylon to India, they brought into India remittances of monies not disclosing them to the foreign exchange authorities in either country. The explanations were not believed by the ITO. He...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras and ors. Vs. S. Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR606(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of all these tax cases since they raise an identical question of law on identical facts. 2. Shri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd. and Aruppukkottai Shri Jayavilas Private Ltd. are two private limited companies in which all the assessees who figure in these references are holding equity shares. Some of the assessees are partners in 'Shri Jayajothi and Company', which is a partnership firm. Each of these concern in carrying on business with the aid of employees who have had a number of years of service to their credit. The management in each of these concerns took a decision to create a gratuity fund in terms of the scheme in Pt. C of Sch. IV to the I.T. Act, 1961. In each of these concerns a gratuity fund was established with effect from January 1, 1973. They also applied to the Commissioner for the approval of the gratuity funds so created. The approval by the Commissioner was granted on March 9, 1976, but with effect from January 1, 1973....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »