Chennai Court September 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chitra Palayakat Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: [1985]156ITR730(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. There are two sets of questions for the two years. We would reproduce the question relating to the assessment year 1958-59 as the questions for 1959-60 are identical. The relevant questions for 1958-59 are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed as a non-resident for the assessment year 1958-59 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the management and control of the firm was wholly outside India during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1958-59 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1958-59 ?' 2. It is not in dispute that the question of pena...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: 1983LC59D(Madras); 1987(30)ELT281(Mad)
1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4764 of 1978 is engaged in the manufacturer of heavy duty motor vehicle and the goods manufactured by it are liable to excise duty under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the Act. Since there was a change in the wording of Section 4 of the Act effective from 1-10-1975, the petitioner was directed to submit its price lists of various goods and accordingly they were submitted. The 'value' of the goods has to be determined at the price at which it charged to its dealer; whereas the third respondent treated the main dealers appointed by the petitioner in India as 'related persons' within the meaning of the definition of that word under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act, which is to the following effect : ''related person' means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the as...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Spencer and Co. Ltd., Madras-600 002 Vs. the Additional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ36Mad
1. Messrs. Spencer & Co. Ltd., is the petitioner. Second respondent filed an appeal under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, challenging the order dated 9-4-1976 terminating his services on medical grounds from 10-4-1976. 2. Second respondent underwent an eye operation for cataract in the year 1974. After three months of rest, he reported for duty and was working in Reserve Stock Godown for nearly one year as a clerk. In 1976, he was sent to Bakery Department and was preparing bills, maintaining stock register, etc. On 25-3-1976, the second respondent was directed to report to the company's Medical Officer for examination. Exhibit R. 1 is the letter. The company's Medical Officer in turn gave Ext. R. 2 addressed to Dr. Gupta an opthalmologist, and he examined the second respondent on 30th March, 1976 and gave a certificate stating that 'he will have great difficulty in doing normal clerical work'. Thereafter the order of termination was passed after securing the r...
Tag this Judgment!R. Seshier Vs. T. Ayyachi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad270
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by the landlord, Seshier, against the order in T. C. T. P. No. 171 of 1977 on the file of the Authorised officer (Land Reforms), Madurai granting remission of the rent payable by the respondenttenant, Ayyachi Ambalam, in an application filed by the revision petitioner for eviction of the respondent.2. The case of the revision petitioner was that the respondent-tenant has not paid the fair rent fixed for the first bogam of fasli 1387 and therefore he should be evicted, The contention of the respondent was that there was 40 proper yield due to heavy rains and pest infections and that there was only 40 per cent yield, The learned Authorised Officer on the evidence of P. W. 2, karnam of the Sholavandan village, came to the conclusion that there was only 40 per cent of the normal yield from out of the lands and ordered payment of proportionate rent. The landlord challenges that order of the Authorised Officer.3. Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S.V. Nagaraja Nadar Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad448; (1982)2MLJ111
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hold an enquiry under Ss. 9(1), and 10, Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is not challenging the proceedings which have culminated in the making of a declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the enquiry under S. 9 of the Act was held on 28th March, 1979, which was a public holiday, namely, Telugu New Year's day, and on that account, the enquiry must be held to be incompetent and there should be a direction for fresh enquiry. The learned counsel frankly admitted that it is not possible to spell out, either from the provisions of the Act or from the Rules framed there under, that an enquiry under Section 9 of the Act should not be held on a public holiday. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that by the enquiry being held on a public holiday, he was p...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayaprakash Vs. the Executive Authority, Tiruthangal Town Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad272; (1982)1MLJ18
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed against enhancement of property tax in between the general revisions, and, according to the petitioner, when respondent has issued a special notice of house tax amendment under R, 10 (3) of the Rules issued under Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958, dated 15-4-1976. he has failed to disclose the reasons which prevailed for making a special revision.2. Rule 10 (3) enables the executive authority to make a special revision but it can be done by him after intimating by a special notice to the owner or occupier of the house that the petition for revising the assessment will be considered, if it reaches the Panchavat office within thirty days from the date of service of such notice.3. Hence it is not sufficient to merely issue a special notice and straightway enhance the tax unless the representations made by the petitioner opposing the proposed enhancement of tax had been considered and disposed of. The notice served on the petitioner does not state the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthammal and ors. Vs. M.K. Mani Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ326
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Legal Representatives of the first defendant in O.S. No. 291 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsiff, Erode who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below are the appellants herein.2. The respondent herein filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement of reconveyance. One Mariappan, Pajagopalan and Angappan had sold the property covered by that suit to the first defendant under a sale deed dated 19th February, 1946. On 20th February, 1946, the vendee, the first defendant, had executed an agreement of reconveyance in favour of the vendors, Maria ppan and others. The vendors had executed a mortgage of the right of reconveyance to the vendee. One Kuppayammal, the mother of the first defendant had filed a suit O. S No. 290 of 1949against Mariappan the third defendant and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the second defendant had attached the said right to obtain reconveyance. In pursuance of that attachment that right was brought to sale a...
Tag this Judgment!The Poly Clinic, Nagercoil Vs. Regional Commissioner, Employees Provid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ449Mad
ORDER1. The point involved in this petition lies within a very short compass, but is an interesting one. The contention of the petitioner is, in so far as apprentice trainees are concerned they are not covered by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act. 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act). After the institution of the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for an opinion under S. 19A of the Act and the opinion rendered on 3rd April, 1980 is also challenged. 2. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the definition of an 'employee' in S. 2(f) of the Act, which is to the following effect : 'Employee means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, a nd who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment.' He then re...
Tag this Judgment!Pondicherry Fertiliser Co. Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC37(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a revision petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. It relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee is a dealer in fertilisers. According to the assessee, the commodity which he was dealing with was a mixture of chemical fertilisers known as sagar manure or sagar complex, which would fall under item 22 of the First Schedule to the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, taxable at the rate of 1 per cent single point. The assessing authority as well as the as the appellate authority have held that it should not be considered to be a chemical fertiliser within the meaning of the said expression as defined under item 22 of the First Schedule, and therefore, taxed it at 2 1/2 per cent. The Tribunal, in disposing of the appeal on 5th March, 1977, held that since sagar manure does not fall under any of the commodities listed under item 22 of the First Schedule to the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, it was not liable to taxa...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kapadia Paints and Allied Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC96(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This is a revision petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27th November, 1976. The amount involved is a sum of Rs. 17,760 being the disallowance of sales returns as made in the assessment by the assessing authority. The said goods were returned by the Southern Railways, on the ground that the materials supplied by the assessee did not come up to the required standard. The related sale was effected on 13th December, 1970, while the credit note passed by the assessee was on 30th June, 1971. The claim for sales return was made on 25th May, 1972. Since the sales related to the prior year, the assessing authority considered that the claim should have been made within six month from the date of sale. Therefore, deductions claimed by the assessee was not allowed. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal following a decision of this Court in Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu [1976] 37 STC...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »