Chennai Court March 1981 Judgments
E.A.V. Krishnamurthy and Son Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1981
Reported in: [1985]152ITR640(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The first question, which falls for our decision in this case is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction of bad debts aggregating to Rs. 5,276 was not admissible as the requirements of section 36(2)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not satisfied ?' 2. The assessee, who claimed the allowance of bad debts in this case, is a registered firm called 'E.A.V. Krishnamurthy and Son, Madurai' carrying on business in cloth. The firm consisted of two equal partners. E.A.V. Krishnamurthy and E.K.Kasiviswanathan. The business of this partnership firm was originally carried on by a Mitakshara joint family in which these individuals were members. In April, 1972, this business was subjected to a partial partition between these two individuals, who immdediately thereafter constitu...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rangaswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer/Wealth-tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR514(Mad)
Venugopal, J.1. The appellants in all these appeals are partner of a firm known under the name and style of M/s. Velumani Engineering Industry. The partnership firm manufacture electrical switches, starters, pumps, etc. The total value of the plant and machinery, as disclosed in the books of account, was Rs. 4,52,256 as on March 31, 1976. The WTO had reason to believe that the value of the value of the machinery disclosed in the books did not reflect the correct value of the plant and machinery and by a letter dated November 12, 1979, he directed the second respondents herein to value the plant and machinery and air-conditioning machines installed in the factory, for purposes of wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. The appellant, who are partners of the firm, filed Writ Petition Nos. 2606 to 2609 of 1980 challenging the direction given by the first respondent to the second respondent to value the plant and machinery and other electrical installations for purposes of m...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Emporium Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR593(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in these cases is a firm by name M/s. Venkatesh Emporium. The firm consists of three partners of whom K. Venkatesan is one with a 40% share therin. He is a partner in his individual capacity and has 40% share in the partnership profits. He happens to be the karta of an HUF. But the finding of the Tribunal is that he is a partner in Venkatesh Emporium only in his individual capacity and not as karta of the HUF. It appears that the HUF had advanced loans to the firm on interest. In respect of these loans, interest was being paid or credited by the firm of Venkatesh Emporium to the HUF. The interest was credit in a separate folio in the firm's account books and maintained for the HUF of Venkatesan. The firm deducted the interest paid to Venkatesan's joint family as an item of outgoing in making up its profit and loss account. The ITO, however, invoked s. 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and added back the interest so claimed while computing the taxable inc...
Tag this Judgment!R. Veerappan Vs. Shanmugavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad445
1. To what extent the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is usurped under the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Owenrship) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is the principal question that is raised in this second appeal 2. The respondent-plaintiff brought O.S. No. 463 of 1975, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, against the appellant-defendant for redemption of the suit Property from the appellant and for directing the appellant to deliver possession as also for recovery of mesne profits, both past and future. The mortgage was oral, The respondent is the purchaser of the equity of redemption, while the appellant was put into possession of the property by the transferee from the original mortgage, Abdul Wahab. The defence is total denial of the oral mortgage. It is stated that Abdul Wahab sold the superstructure to the appellant and that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to all the benefits of Kudiyiruppu Act 40 of 1971 and is an agricultural lab...
Tag this Judgment!P. Raman Vs. the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad56
Gokulakrishnan, Offg. C.J.1. The appellant filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai, to hold the auction as per the notice dated 10-2-1981. According to the appellant, the Corporation, instead of holding the auction as per its tender notice, has stopped the auction for collection of the daily fees from persons who are selling flowers inside the Central Market, Madurai, known as Muthuramalinga Thevar Market, for the year 1981-82, and contemplates to lease it out. The learned, Judge felt that the relief asked for by the appellant could not be brought within the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this court and accordingly he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal has been filed.2. Mr. Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that as per the tender notice and also practice of the Corporation, the Corporation must conduct the auction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Structee Mech India, Partnership Firm and ors. Vs. Bharatkumar Pahlajr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad51
Natarajan, J.1. Respondents 1 to 5 in I. P. No. 72 of 1976, have preferred this appeal to canvass the correctness of I the order of adjudication passed against them in the said insolvency petition.2. The first appellant is a registered partnership firm and appellants 2 to 5 are its partners. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition under S. 9(d)(ii) and 9(9) read with Ss. 10, 11 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudicating the appellants and one Job Simon (the 6th respondent in the insolvency petition) as insolvents and for directing the estate of the insolvents to vest in the Official Assignee for purposes of administration for the benefit of the general body of creditors. As regards the act of insolvency under S. 9(d)(ii), it was alleged in the petition that the appellants and the said Job Simon had made themselves unavailable for being contacted at the office or at the works. This contention was not accepted by t...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Mohamed Kasim Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR475(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. In this reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the addition of Rs. 1,88,640 under the s. 10 of the Act to the principal value of the estate of one Kader Ibrahim Rowther, who died on March 10, 1967, is questioned. This addition was made on three distinct categories. The decease had gifted Rs. 10,000 each, on February 9, 1962, and February 27, 1962, to this two daughters. These sums were withdrawn by the deceased from the books of account maintained by him for this hardware business and were given to the donees. After some time, the amounts were deposited by the donees with the deceased and the deceased had made some corresponding credit entries, each for Rs. 10,000 in favour of his two daughters. At the time when the gifts were made and also at the time when these were received back by the deceased, the deceased was the sole proprietor of his business. The business was subsequently converted into one of partnership by the admission of the two sons of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Sannasi Munayathiriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad293
1. The plaintiff-Wakf Board filed a suit in the court of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli (0. S. No. 253 of 1975) for declaration that the suit property is wakf property and for possession and for other reliefs. A wakf-nama was executed on 1st April 1940 the registration copy of which has been marked as Ex. A. 2. The executant is one Ebramsa Rowilier and the document is called wakf-cum-settlement. One of the properties covered by this wakf was alienated by one Jaithoon Bibi to the, defendant on 26th Sept. 1963, for a sum of Rs. 2000 and the alienee was in possession. The Wakf Board stated that the alienation was beyond the powers of the alienor and that the alienation was not binding on the Wakf Board. The possession of the defendant was said to be unlawful and, therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and possession.2. In the written statement the alienee defendant denied the existence of the wakf or its character as a public wakf. According to the defendant he had p...
Tag this Judgment!Muthammal and ors. Vs. Maruthathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ833
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused 3 to 8 to quash the second charge framed against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 11 of 1980 pending on his file. 2. It appears from the facts of the case that the respondent herein filed C.C. No. 11 of 1980 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore under Section 494 read with Section 109, I.P.C against accused 1 and 2 and the petitioners herein. The contention of the wife/respondent was, that while her marriage was subsisting with the first accused, the first accused married the second accused and, therefore, the first accused is liable to be punished under section 494, I.P.C. That apart, it was contended that the third accused who is the mother of the first accused, the fourth accused who is the elder brother of the first accused, accused 5 and 6 are either sister-in-law sisters of the first accused and accused 7 and 8 who are the sisters and who are all the petitioners herein, have abetted ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Tamil Nadu Vs. S.T.B. Ameen Khaleeli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]143ITR679(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras, under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, on the following question of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 46(1)(b) would not apply to the facts of the case to uphold the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 and consequently to the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 under section 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 46(1)(b) read with section 16 would apply and that, therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 50,000 made by the Assistance Controller could not be sustained ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated. One Ammen Khaleeli, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, died on June 5,1970. On August 29,1963, the deceased made a gift of vacant site of the extent of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »