Chennai Court August 1981 Judgments
P. Swaminathan and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ347Mad
ORDER1. The petitioners are employees of the second respondent. They secured orders for transfer at their own request and agreed to forego travelling allowances etc. on such transfers. The payment of travelling allowance on transfer is provided for in the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and other conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, which was framed by the Central Government pursuant to the powers under S. 16 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act (Act 57 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The applicability of the Act and the Scheme to the matters in hand is not in dispute. The petitioners chose to file Claim Petition No. 38 of 1976, before the first respondent under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, praying for computation of the benefits of travelling allowance etc. due to them under the scheme. Respondents 2 and 3 herein, who w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Smt. E.S.M.P. Rasiya Banu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR592(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal arises under the G.T. Act, 1958. The assessee, a Muslim lady, by name Rasiya Banu, was a partner in a partnership firm called M/s. Mydeen Agencies. She had a 20 per cent, share in the partnership. With effect from September 30, 1971, she retired from the firm. However, she did not take anything in money or specie from the firm, as and towards her- share to which she was entitled as a retiring partner. The GTO held that the assessee's, relinquishment of her share on retirement from the firm amounted to a gift. He levied gift-tax on it, determining the value of the relinquished share at Rs. 77,896. By stages, the matter came before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the officer's view that the assessee's relinquish ment of her 20 per cent, share amounted to a gift, but they proceeded to hold that it was eligible for exemption under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the G.T. Act.2. Section 5(1)(xiv) enacts that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Georgepolous
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR380(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. One Georgepolous was carrying on business in the export of hides and skins. It was his sole proprietary concern. On December 11, 1964, a firm of four partners (hereinafter called the 'assessee-firm') purchased this business for Rs. 50,000. Under the terms of purchase, the assessee-firm was entitled to carry on the business of export from where Georgepolous left off. In other words, the take-over by the assessee-firm was of the concern as a whole including goodwill, trade-mark and import and export quota rights as well as the trade outstandings and trade debts. 2. Subsequent to the take-over of the business and the carrying on of the business by the partnership concern, some of the foreign buyers, to whom goods had been earlier supplied by the erstwhile sole proprietor, found that deliveries to them had been under short-measurement. When this came to the notice of the firm which purchased the undertaking as a going concern, they came forward to settle the claims o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. B.M. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)179
1. This reference has been sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The reference raises a question of law under the W.T. Act., 1957. The tax under this Act is fastened on the net wealth of a taxpayer. Net wealth on any given calculation date is the excess of the taxpayer's assets over his debts. In the computation of the net wealth, certain assets are, under the terms of the statute, to be excluded from reckoning. Section 5(1) of the Act contains a list of such exempted assets. Under clause (viii) of this provisions, the "wearing apparel" of an assessee stands excluded from his taxable assets. The Supreme Court held, in case which came before them, that items of an assessee's jewellery must be brought within the term wearing appear, and thus qualify for exemption under s. 5(1)(viii). This decision was rendered on February 28, 1970. It is found reported in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna . Parliament, however, did not accept this decision as reflecting its idea of what a wearing apparel ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. J.K.K. Angappa Chaett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Mad)123; [1983]144ITR775(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. There are reference under s. 256(2) of the I. t. Act hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. and ad the issues involved in all these case are interconnected they are dealt with together. 2. One J. K. K. Angappa Chettiar and his there brothers, J. K. K. Nataraja, J. K. K. Sundaraaja and J. K. K. Munirajah of Kumarapalayam, hereinafter refereed to as the J. K. K. group, entered into an agreement dated October 23, 1967, with three firms, (1) M/s. Rajarajeswari Textiles, (2) returns. income-tax respective their in em by shown duly also was firms e of each appropriated amount the and firms, retained lakhs 1.94 Rs. balances The other. or years one for returns brothers four fro accounted group K K. J. to apportioned 91% representing 19.65 this out lakhs, 21.59 8.25 off value licence basis on imported goods sale purchase different earned been have stated which profits aggregate concerned. wee other as far years, later concerned Textiles Rajarajeswari from income so 1969-70, 1968...
Tag this Judgment!M. Devaraja Padayachi Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ404
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Though in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition several points have been taken, Mr. R. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, confines to only one point being that, the District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965 to take suo motu action When he has already exercised appellate powers under Rule 10 of the Rules, and hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction.2. It is not in dispute that the District Revenue Officer had earlier dismissed the appeal prefered by the petitioner on 27th April, 1977. It is thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who by order, dated 22nd June, 1978, directed the District Revenue Officer to take suo motu action. A show-cause notice on 30th August, 1978, was issued by the District Revenue Officer, who had later on passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of assignment, dated 30th June, 1976. Mr. R....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.K.D. Ramanathan Chettiar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: [1985]153ITR313(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, is about the precise tax treatment of a change which had occurred in a partnership business. 2. Changes in partnership may arise in various ways and in various forms. A change, for instance, may occur in the partnership personnel. Sometimes, the partners may remain unchanged, but a change may occur in the profit-sharing ratio inter se between them. These changes, it will be noticed, need not necessarily bring about any change in the business. The business will remain intact and what undergoes a change is only organization or management. Sometimes, the change might affect the very structure of the firm, as when it gets wholly dissolved. When a firm is dissolved, it may be followed by winding up of the firm's business, which will mean the end of that business too. But even in a dissolution, the business may be allowed to remain intact as, when, under the scheme of dissolution, the business is parted with as a going concern f...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mines Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC38(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The appellant-assessee, Messrs. Krishna Mines, Tirunelveli, dealers in limestones and jellies, who entered into a contract with the Madras Port Trust, agreeing to supply stones and stone metals at the Port Trust Area, reported a total taxable turnover of Rs. 27,70,191.47 for the assessment year 1970-71 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee claimed exemption from the levy of tax in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,79,828.62 on the ground that the said sum related to transport charges, charged separately, and therefore, the said amount should be deducted from the total turnover under rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, rejected this contention. On appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tirunelveli, held that the freight charges, in respect of which exemption has been claimed could not be included in the taxable turnover as price of the goods, but has to ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Tvl. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad113
1. This is a reference under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Central Act 11 of 1899). The short facts are that the Indian Cable and Wire Industries, a registered partnership firm, was carrying on business with Thiru Vrajlal N. Sanghvi and eight others as its partners. In pursuance of an agreement dated 12-4-19,73, between the partners of the aforesaid partnership firm it was decided to promote a private limited company and to transfer and convey all the properties as well as liabilities of the partnership firm to the limited company for consideration of Rupees 8,40,000. Accordingly, Inca Cables Pvt. Ltd was incorporated under the Companies Act on 5-5-1973. The limited company offered to pay the said sum of Rupees 8,40,000, in the form of fully paid up shares. Out of 1500 shares in its capital, the company allotted 840 fully paid up shares to the nine partners of the partnership firm and their family members. All these nine partners took 45 shares in the capital of the company. Of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›