Chennai Court January 1982 Judgments
Amithakumar Amichand Vs. Jawanthraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad324
1. The tenant is the revision petitioner and the revision arises out of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The respondents (landlords) filed H. R. C. No. 908 of 1978 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the first floor of the building bearing door No. 101 Narayana Mudali Street, Madras 1. The monthly rent is Rs. 450. The premises were let out both for residential and non-residential purposes. The landlords are in occupation of the ground floor which is not sufficient for their purposes. They are carrying on business in the front portion of the ground floor and residing in the remaining portions of the ground floor. Each of the three respondents, who have come to succeed to this property on the death of Raji Bai, has a separate family in the ground-floor. The daughter and son-in-law of the first respondent have come down to Madras and the son-in-law desires to set up medical practice and also open a clinic in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-v Vs. P M P Soundara Pandian and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR385(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - The assessee in this tax case is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in shall and gram and deriving income therefrom. For the assessment year 1965-66 relevant to the previous year ended March 31, 1965, the assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 23,080. During the examination of accounts, which followed the finding of the return, the ITO found a number of each credits appearing in the assessees books of account. Before the investigation into the genuineness of these credits and their source could get heated up, the assessee itself came forwards and offered for the purposes of assessment, the amount of peak credit appearing from the account books of the year. The ITO accepted that offer and brought to tax a sum of Rs. 30,000 which he estimated to be the peaks credit, as part of the income, over and above what was returned by the assessee. In this process while disbelieving the apparent form of the cash credit entire which figured in the a...
Tag this Judgment!C.M.S. Abdus Salam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR649(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J.1. The assessee carried on business at Salem. The question referred by the Tribunal for our decision under the W. T. Act. The assessment years involved are 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the respective valuation date being 31st March, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. On March 29, 1969, the assessee credited a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the account of his minor son, Mohammed Abdul Khadar. The corresponding debit entry wa made in the capital account. The opening cash balance in the assessees boos of account as on the date of gift was only Rs., 1', 097.19. the assessee duly filed a gift0-tax return treating the sum of Rs. 25,000 as having been gifted by him to this minor son. the GTo was of the opinion that since the cash balance with the assessee as on March 28, 1969, was only Rs. 1,097.19, the assessee could not have made valid gift of Rs. 25,000 and that a mere book entry would not be sufficient to amount to a gift,. Nevertheless in view of the fact that the assessee has fil...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Sowbhagmull Mahavirchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR747(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These references from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concern the assessment of one Sowbhagmull Mahavirchand (hereinafter called the assessee') for the assessment year 1971-72, and also proceedings for penalty against him for the same assessment year. 2. The assessee was carrying on shroff business, that is to say, business in jewelry and money-lending at Villupuram. He was also a partner in some textile concerns in Madras. One Janardhanam, who described himself as a clerk of the assessee, was apprehended by the Central Excise authorities in March, 1971, at Thanjavur railway station, carrying 25 bars of gold with foreign markings. This Janardhanam gave a statement then to the effect that he was a clerk of assessee, that the assessee was indulging in business in contraband foreign gold and that the stock of 25 bars of gold which he was carrying belonged to the assessee. One Govindaraja Chettiar was said to be a person to whom the 25 bars of gold were meant to be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. V.R. Chittal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR698(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question of law we are asked to consider in this tax case is as follows: 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not guilty of concealment of income within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto is based on relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a Lady belonging to the Nattukottai Chettiar community. For the assessment year 1967-68, she returned a total income of Rs. 2,764 disclosing, among other items of income, interest on deposits. The assessment was completed under s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened, and the total income was determined at Rs. 48,170. The difference between the figure as originally assessed and the figure at which the subsequent assessment was made for the same year represented what, according to the ITO, was income from certain unexplained investments of the assessee. The assessee ap...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanji Navji and Co. Vs. K.P.C. Spinners and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad31
1. These two appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Court below allowing I. A. 1802 of 1977 filed by the defendants 1 and 3 and I. A. 89 of 1977 filed by defendants 2, 4 and 5 in O. S. 858 of 1977, and staying the said suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff who is aggrieved against the orders passed by the Court below staying his suit has come forward with these appeals. The circumstances under which the suit was stayed by the Court below may briefly be stated:- The plaintiff has entered into a contract with the defendants for supply of cotton. In pursuance of the said contract, the plaintiff supplied cotton to the defendants and for the supplies made, the defendants have issued five cheques on different dates, on 23-3-1976 for Rs.790; on 29-1-1977 for Rs13,000; on 2-2-1977 for Rs.13,000; on 10-2-1977 for Rs.14,000; and on 17-2-1977 for Rupees 14, 736-77. Out of the said five cheques, the plaintiff was able to realise only two cheques had been dishonoured wi...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanji Mavji and Company, a Registered Partnership Firm Dealing in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ216
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Court below allowing I.A. No. 1802 of 1977 filed by the defendants 1 and 3 and I.A. No. 89 of 1977, filed by defendants 2, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 850 of 1977 and staying the said suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff who is aggrieved against the orders passed by the Court below staying his suit has come forward with these appeals. The circumstances under which the suit was stayed by the Court below may briefly be stated:2. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the defendants for supply of cotton. In pursuance of the said contract, the plaintiff supplied cotton to the defendants and for the supplies made, the defendants have issued five cheques on different dates, on 23rd March, 1976 for Rs. 750, on 29th January, 1977 for Rs. 13,000 on 2nd February, 1977 for Rs. 13,000; on 10th February, 1977 for Rs. 14,000; and on 17th February, 1977 for Rs. 14,736.77. Out of the said five cheques, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. A. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Mad)329; [1982]137ITR846(Mad)
Balasubrahmanayan, J.1. In these two groups of tax cases, three pints arise for consideration under the I.T. Act, 1961. One group, viz., T.C. Nos. 300 to 302 of 1977, relates to A. Venkataraman. The questions of law referred to us by the Tribunal in this group are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that invoking of section 52(2) was not justified in this case for assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payments made to the two former tenants, M/s Dunlop India Ltd., and M/s Harison and Company, should be allowed as deduction in the computation of capital gains as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset within the meaning of section 48(i) of the income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Nirbhayala Bahadurmal Vs. Krishna Rao M. Nikan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ376
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. These are two revision petitions, one by the landlord and another by one of the tenants (first respondent before the Rent Controller) against the common judgment passed by the Appellate Authority. For the sake of convenience, the term 'petitioner' hereinafter refers to the landlord and the term 'respondent', wherever it occurs will mean the tenant Shah Nirbhayalal Bahadurmal (first respondent before the Rent Controller).2. The petitioner-landlord filed the petition for eviction of three tenants on the ground of commission of acts of waste by the respondent, conversion of the building for different user by the respondent and requirement for owner's occupation. The tenants denied all the grounds and the Rent Controller found that the tenant has committed acts of waste, but rejected the other two grounds, namely, conversion by the tenant and requirement for own occupation. Consequently, eviction was ordered. The respondent and the landlord preferred appeals before t...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ294
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. This writ appeal is against the order passed by Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 5947 of 1975. It is unnecessary for us to elaborately state the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the respondent herein became the regularly appointed Assistant by virtue of the exemption granted to him in G.O.Ms. No. 2247, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1967. As per this Government order, the respondent was exempted with effect from the date of the said order of the Government from passing the Revenue Tests, Parts I and III, so as to enable him to be regularly appointed as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue. It is the admitted case that the respondent is a confirmed Assistant by virtue of the said Government Order. It is also admitted that the respondent has passed Part II of the Revenue Test. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted as Superintendent in the very same Department. When the Board of Revenue sought the concurrence of the Government as regards the confirmation of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »