Chennai Court October 1982 Judgments
Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR282(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the assessee in all these cases is the same, they are dealt with together.2. The assessee is M/s. Indian Bank Ltd., which is one of the banks taken over as a result of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, as and from July 19, 1969, and the assessee was paid a total compensation under the provisions of the said Act of Rs. 2,30,00,000. For the assessment year 1970-71 corresponding to the previous year ending December 31, 1969, the ITO determined the netcapital gains arising out of the taking over of the bank at Rs. 55,166 after determining the cost of the banking undertaking at Its. 2,29,44,834, The order of the ITO computing the net capital gains at Rs. 55,166 for the assessment year 1970-71 was questioned before the AAC who took the view that the total cost of the undertaking at the time of the taking over was Rs. 2,36,61,702 as against Rs. 2,30,00,000 being the compensation received for the taking over of the undertaking and...
Tag this Judgment!Anjanadevi Vs. Arumugham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad283; (1983)2MLJ326
Ramanujam, J.1. The claim at in O. P. No. 183 of 1978, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras. dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, has filed the appeal claiming not only higher compensation, but also an award which is enforceable as against the Insurance Company.2. On 11-3-1978 at about 4.30 p.m. one Kalaisekar, a boy aged about 12 years, was traveling in a cycle as a pillion rider. At that time a car TMW 2966 coming from behind knocked down the cycle as well as the pillion rider and run over him, resulting in his instantaneous death. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the mother of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the loss of her son, as against the owner of the car and the Insurance Company with which the car had been insured.3. The said claim petition was not opposed by the owner of the car. He remained ex parte.4. The Insurer opposed the claim of...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Ammal and ors. Vs. K.G. Haridas Kunnathalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ321
Ramanujam, J.1. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 45 of 1975 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein. They had filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of the death of one Sivasami in a motor vehicles accident. Their case as set out in the claim petition was that the first petitioner is the mother and petitioners 2 to' 4 are the brothers of the deceased Sivasami, that the deceased was seated on the pillion of the .scooter TNC 2554, driven by his brother, the second petitioner, that the said scooter and one lorry TNC 5227 collided, as a result of which, Sivasami, who was seated on the pillion of the scooter was thrown out resulting in his instantaneous death and that for the death of the said Sivasami, the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000.2. The said claim was opposed by the owner of the lorry as well as the insurance company with which the lorry had been insured. Their case was that the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Joseph Swaminathan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR198(Mad)
Balasubrrhmanyan, J. 1. The assessee, who figures in this reference was charged to tax on the income from house properties. One of the house properties the income whereof was brought to tax is a house bearing door No. 91, Bussy Street, Pondicherry. The assessee's contention was that this house belonged to his son, Mathew and not to him. Investigation into the circumstances under which this house property was purchased showed that the sale deed for this property bearing the date, February 5, 1966, stood in the name of the assessee's son for Rs. 23,000. According to the assessee, the wherewithal for the purchase of this property was found by his son in the following manner; two lump sums of Rs. 5,000 each were given as gift by the assessee to this son. With this amount, the son was carrying on business of film-financing and in a period of three years, he was able to make up an addition of Rs. 13,000 to the amounts gifted. The aggregate funds, according to the assessee, went in for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!D. Esra Sunder Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1982
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT385(Mad)
Gopalakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the brother of one Dalsingh, a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. The petition is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to produce the body of the detenu Dalsingh before this court and for giving the direction to set him at liberty. The detenu is now confined in the Central Prison, Madras, under the orders of the State of Tamil Nadu in its proceedings No. S.R. 2464-3/81, dated 19-10-1981 under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. The alleged grounds for the detention are - 1. Certain persons were apprehended on 12-6-1981 by the Customs Preventive Staff, Tuticorin, while conducting Coastal Patrol; 2. that they have given statements alleging that the detenu was engaging himself as a smuggler; 3. that on their information contraband goods were seized from one place; 4. that i...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Adityan and ors. Vs. R. Kannan Adityan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad334; (1983)2MLJ32
Padmanabhan, J.1. This O.S. Appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 2nd Sept., 1982 in Appln. No. 3124 of 1982 in Appln. No. 165 of 1981.2. The facts leading to the filing of Application No. 3124 of 1982 may be briefly stated as follows. The late S. B. Adityan created a trust called the 'Thanthi Trust' on 1-3-1954. While creating the trust he appointed besides himself, his elder brother S. T. Aditayan and his elder son B. R. Adityan as trustees. On 19-5-1959 B. R. Adityan resigned. The respondents herein Kannan Adityan and Kathiresan Aditayan are the sons of the said B. R. Adityan. On 22-5-1959 the founder appointed his another son B. S. Aditayn the first appellant herein and also the Educational Trustee Co. (P) Ltd., as trustees. B. S. Adityan was appointed as Director-Trustee. On 8-11-1961 the founder S. B. Aditayan resigned. On 27-12-1963 S. T. Adityan the elder brother of the founder also resigned from the trusteeship. On 20-6-1978,...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. A.C. Desikachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Mad)345; [1983]140ITR441(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a reference under the E.D. Act, 1953. The deceased, s estate included, among other properties, 101 shares in a private limited company. It the same company, the deceased's brother, who figures as the accountable person in this case, held 16 shares. The share capital of the company comprised, in the aggregate, only 250 shares. The deceased was all in all in the company as a director. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty accordingly considered this company as a 'controlled company' within the meaning of s. 17 of the E.D. Act. there is no dispute now about this determination. The Asst, Controller found that for a number of years past, the deceased has been maintaining a current account with this company. This current account remained to the deceased's credit right from the beginning unto the last. During the period of three years before his death and even earlier, the deceased has been withdrawing various ums of money at one time or another from this curr...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: [1984]56STC191(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This revision is directed against the exclusion from the taxable turnover of handling charge, charged separately by a dealer in refrigerators. It was found as a fact by the Tribunal that handling charges were separately charged for by the assessee to the customers and were not included in the price of the goods sold. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal deleted the handling charges from the taxable turnover. In this revision, the learned Government Pleader urges that there could have been no handling charges at all at the rate of Rs. 50 for each refrigerator and Rs. 180 as labour charges for each air-conditioner, since the business places of the assessee and the purchaser were in one and the same building. We do not think that it is given to the taxing authority to pass any moral judgment as to the propriety of awarding handling and labour charges with reference to any transactions on the ground that there was little labour involved in the process. These c...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopal Pillai Vs. Sri Kachaleeswarar Devasthanam by Its Executive O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ365
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, proclaiming for sale the properties attached.2. The plaintiff-Devasthanam, the respondent herein, obtained a decree against the revision petitioner for Rs. 912.37 being the arrears of rent due by the revision petitioner to the plaintiff. The respondent filed an application for execution for attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to the revision petitioner. Notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was issued and that notice was received by the revision petitioner judgment-debtor on 8th September, 1980, and after some adjournments the revision petitioner represented to the Court that he is not filing any counter, whereupon the Court posted the application to enable the judgment-debtor revision petitioner to pay the amount. The petition was posted on 8th December, 1980, 17th December, 1980 and 24th December, 1980, but as no payment was made and as t...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. Shree Shanmuga Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR600(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a reference under the I.T. Act, 1961. The questions of law were propounded by the Department for reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, rejected their reference application in the first instance. The Department then came to this court and obtained an order directing the Tribunal t state a case on both the questions. The stated case has now been argued at lenght before us. At the end of the day, however, we realize that only one of the two questions requires serious consideration. The answer to the question is far too self-evident to merit discussion. We reproduce the question below : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 40A(3) would apply only if each item of the expenditure involved in a single bill several items exceeds Rs. 2,500 ?' 2. The enquiry prompted by the question is about the disallowance made by the ITO of two payments made by the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »