Chennai Court March 1981 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. P.M. Madhavan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC244(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. In this batch of cases a common question of law as to the maintainability of an appeal to the Tribunal under section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act against an order refusing to excuse the delay in filing an appeal made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is raised. In two of the cases, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was one refusing to condone the delay in representation. The maintainability of an appeal against that order is questioned in these two cases. 2. In all these cases against the original order of assessment, appeals were preferred by the assessees to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner belatedly with petitions to excuse the delay in filing. On the ground that the assessees had not shown or proved sufficient cause for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed period, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petitions for excusing the delay. The assessees preferred further appeals purporting to be under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad316
1. The defendant is the appellant before this court and the plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff company placed orders with Messrs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Calcutta, for 24 - 4 metric tons for the Trichi unit and 23-9 metric tons for Tanjore - unit. The two consignments were loaded from Durgapur Steel Plant in two separate wagons. When the wagons arrived at Tiruchi goods-yard there was shortage in weight. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3451-78 being the value of the shortage of the Tanjore consignment and Rs. 6442-02 being the value of the shortage of the Tiruchi consignment. They have also claimed weighment and demurrage charges for the Tanjore consignment. The defendant resisted the claim on various grounds and one of the pleas taken was that the plaintiff must strictly prove service of valid notice as required under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial, court rejected all the contenti...
Tag this Judgment!J.K.A. Rajappa Chettiar Vs. the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1562
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellant Board, dt. 21st October, 1976 upholding the order of the Director of Enforcement dt. 25-4-1972 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant for violation of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The appellant herein exported two shipments of G.R.I. goods as representing a firm by name Kullappa Textiles, Komarapalayam of handicrafts goods to the value of Rs. 85,000/- during November, 1963 out of which he repatriated only a sum of Rs. 7,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 78,000/- to be repatriated. On the basis of the said export to the value of Rs. 85,000/- he obtained import entitlements to the value of Rs. 62,862/-. 3. He also sent four shipments of Zari goods to Singapore for the total invoice value of Rs. 13,44,428/- during December, 1963 as representing the firm M/s. Rajalakshmi Textiles, Komarapalayam. Out of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Seshasayee Brothers P. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR322(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, raises a question about allowance of a claim for losses in trade. A public company called 'Mettur Chemicals' was originally being managed by a partnership firm of Calcutta, whom we will call 'Dayaram Firm', for short. There was a regular managing agency agreement for a period of years between the Dayaram Firm and Mettur Chemicals. While that agreement was still to go for some time yet, the Dayaram Firm was willing to give up its managing agency in favour of the assessee, a private company in Tiruchirapalli. The assessee agreed to assume the managing agency of Mettur Chemicals on the terms suggested by the Dayaram Firm. An agreement in writing was then entered into, under which the Dayaram Firm resigned its managing agency, and the assessee stepped in an the next managing agent of Mettur Chemicials for a fresh term of years. The consideration for the agreement between the assessee and the Dayaram Firm was that the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sundaresan and Two ors. Vs. A. Ramachandran and Co. by Partner Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ389
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The question of the maintainability of an appeal under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979(XL of 1979) arises for consideration in this matter under the following circumstances. The appellants filed I. A. No. 1239 of 1979 in O. S. No. 119 of 1971, Principal Sub-Court, Salem, under Sections 14(2) and 16 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979(XL of 1979), praying for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14th June, 1971, as null and void and also for an amendment of the decree. The application was dismissed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, by his order dated 24th December, 1980. Against that order, the appellants preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979(XL of 1979). The office returned the papers raising a question as to how the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is maintainable and requiring the counsel for the appellants to furnish any authority in support of the maintainability of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. L. Kuppuswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Mad)315; [1981]132ITR416(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and the Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the property tax referable to earlier years enhanced and levied by the Corporation should be allowed as a deduction in computing the annual letting value of the property for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The assessee derives a large income from 'property'. During the year under consideration he derived an income of Rs. 36,896. This amount was arrived at without taking into account a sum of Rs. 2,490 demanded from his as property tax which related to the earlier years but demanded during the relevant accounting year. The said amount related to the earlier accounting years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The enhanced demand came to be made by the city municipal authorities consequent on the revision of the annual val...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR1030(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The question which has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act run as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the expenditure incurred by the non-resident firm of which he was a partner for carrying on its business in Malaysia for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm known as Chitra Palayacat Co., Penang, which is a non-resident firm and which carries on business in Malaysia. It does not have a branch in India. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee admitted an income of Rs. 8,845 from the said firm and claimed a deduction of Rs. 19,313 as allowable expenditure under s. 35B of the Act. By his order dated July 5, 1971, the ITO determined the taxable income at Rs 17,880 accepting the aforesaid claim of the assessee. 3. The Addl. Commissioner was of the view that ...
Tag this Judgment!T.M.N.M. Somasundara Nadar Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR815(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - In this reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of a firm called M/s. T.M.N.M. Somasundara Nadar Sons, Virudhunagar, a dispute touching the disallowance of interest payments made by that firm to a partner of it, by name Nagarathna Nadar, is in question. The firm consisted of 12 partners. Nagarathna Nadar was originally joint along with his brothers in an HUF. On August 16, 1966, there was a partial partition in Nagarathna Nagars family. In that partition, Rs. 50,000 was allotted to Nagarathna Nadars share. This amount which was called shestabagam was credited to a separate account in the books of the assessee-firm in which Nagarathna Nadar was a partner in his individual capacity. The amount carried interest. The interest was also credit in the firms books in the shestabagam account relating to the family. In the profit and loss account of the firm, the account of interest payable to the family under the shestabagam account was deducted as an outgoing....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. S. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR815(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In the reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question is referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the facts of the case and that the development rebate allowed for assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66 cannot be withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. In making the original assessment for the year 1960-61 to 1965-66, development rebate was allowed on the new machinery and plant installed by the HUF of which one Srinivasa Iyer was the karta and his son was a coparcener. It is not necessary for us to trouble ourselves with the figures. There was a partial partition of this family under which the machinery and plant were allotted to the two coparceners at their written down value. After the partition, the two members sold the said machinery an...
Tag this Judgment!Selambal and anr. Vs. Mannankatti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad8
1. The petitioners filed a suit in the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, for redemption of a mortgage against ,the respondent. The suit was dismissed for default. The petitioners then filed an application under Order 9 R. 9 C.P.C., to set aside the dismissal of the suit. In that application the learned District Munsif passed an order to the effect that the application will be allowed on payment of costs by the petitioners to the respondents on or before 2-11-1971, and he further directed the application to be called on 3-11-1971. When the application was called on 3-11-1971, it was found that the petitioners had not deposited the costs. The District Munsif thereupon dismissed the application after recording the fact that costs had not been paid.2. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the District Court. The appeal was particularly directed against the order daed 23-10-1971. The District Judge however dismissed the appeal as incompetent. He made a reference to the two orders passed b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »