Chennai Court November 1982 Judgments
Bharatha Panicker Vs. Krishnakumari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ189
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The third party to the suit O.S. No. 1033 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Poonmallee is the petitioner in revision. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the defendant in the suit. From the copy of the plaint furnished in the typed set filed along with this revision. I find that the suit is a simple one for declaration of the possessory title of the plaintiff for the suit property and for vacant possession. The suit is being contested by the defendant and the defendant claims that he has got right over the suit property. This Is evident from the copy of the written statement included in the typed set. The third party-petitioner in this revision filed I.A. No. 1557 of 1981 to implead himself as the second plaintiff in the suit. That application has been dismissed by the court below. Hence this revision.2. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the claim of the petitioner is that he is ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Sri Rajagopal Transports ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)5; [1983]144ITR573(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Both these tax case arise on the same appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Two questions of law arises for our consideration. The question we would like to dispose of first concentrate the extent of the power of remanded exercisable by the Appellate Tribunal. This question has been formulated in the present case in the flowing terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the cease the Appellate Tribunal was right in entertaining fresh grounds of appeal put forth by the assessee and in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to admit the fresh grounds and decide the case on merits notwithstanding the fact the the claim for deduction sought to be raised in the fresh grounds was not a point of dispute either before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commisssioner at the time of the original appeal proceedings?'2. The controversy relates to the quantum of deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of intere...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. V.K. Balachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR4(Mad)
Balasubrahmanayan, J.1. This is a case in which the assessee, a Professor of Mathematics in the Ramanujam Institute of the Madras University, was given a grant-in-aid of $10,000 and other fringe payments during the academic year 1970-71 by the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study as consideration for his doing research work at the Institute in New Jersey for a few months. The assessee was being assessed to income-tax under our I.T. Act, 1961, in the status of a resident of India. He claimed that the grant-in-aid received by him from the Princeton Institute was to be excluded from his taxable income under s. 10(16) of the I.T. Act. The ITO turned down the assessee's claim on the score that the grant-in-aid was nothing but salary paid by a foreign institute to the assessee as a professor of mathematics. On appeal, the AAC went into the question whether the grant made by the Princeton Institute can be regarded as salary. He held that there was no employer-employee relationship between th...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Murugappan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR107(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is under the W.T. Act, 1957. The question relates to the applicability to the assessee, who figures in this case, of a concessional rate of tax provided for under r. 3 of Pt. II of Sch. I to the Act. This rule provides for the cutting down of the wealth-tax rates by one-half, in a case where the assessee is an individual who is not a citizen of India and who is also not a resident of India. It is not in dispute that the assessee in this case is not a citizen of India. So far as the degree of the assessee's residence is concerned, there again we do not have any controversy that he is a person 'not ordinarily resident in India'. The question is whether r. 3, in the circumstances, would apply to the assessee's case. 2. The Tribunal said that the assessee would not come within r. 3 because he does not answer the description of an individual who is not a resident in India. We agree with this view. 3. The W.T. Act i...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.A. Siddique Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR307(Mad)
1. This tax reference concerns a claim for deduction of interest in the computation of the property income of an assessee's wife and minor children which is included as part of the assessee's total income. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee, one Siddique by name, borrowed money at interest and with the aid of the borrowed money purchased items of house property in the names of his wife and his minor children intending those acquisitions to be for their absolute benefit. Section 64(1)(iv) and (v) of the I.T. Act, 1961, lays down that in computing the total income of an individual, there shall be included any income arising directly or indirectly from assets which that individuals has transferred directly or indirectly to his wife or minor children, otherwise than for adequate consideration. Apparently because of the wide language of this provision, the assessee, in this case, did not object to the inclusion in his own assessment of the income from the house properties purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpha Labs, Madras Vs. Union of India and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: 1983(13)ELT947(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ129
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is a licensed manufacturer of drugs and medicines covered by Tariff Item 14-E of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and excise duty is payable in respect of drugs and medicines manufactured by them on an ad valorem basis under the said Act. The petitioner submitted a price list which included only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturer's profit to the Excise authorities for their approval and the second respondent herein rejected the same and returned it for re-submission after showing correctly the assessable value. Aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent dated 24-12-1981, the petitioner has approached this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorified Mandamus to quash the said order of the second respondent and to direct the respondents to forbear from levying and collecting excise duty from the petitioner by including the post-manufacturing expenses, namely, distribution cost, onward freight, promotional expenses, c...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kaliammal and ors. Vs. Athi V. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ252
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2678 and 3066 of 1981 have been filed by the tenants and the landlords respectively against the order passed by the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge, Karur) under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (called the Act) in C.M.A. No. 30 of 1980 fixing fair rent for the tenanted premises. The premises in respect of which fair rent has been fixed is a non-residential building, viz., a theatre in Karur. Originally, the building had been leased to one Kuppuswami Gounder the predecessor-in-interest of the tenants on a rent of Rs. 700 per month for the building and Rs. 300 for furniture, etc. While so, the landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1977 for fixation of fair rent for the premises under Section 4 of the Act. The landlord's claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,620 per month would be fair and reasonable. The tenants stated in their counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. 1,700 per month would be reasonable rent for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Electro Mechanical Fabricators Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR11(Mad); [1984]55STC371(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a proprietary concern run under the name of Premier Electro Mechanical Fabricators. Part of the assets of this business represented items of machinery. On 29th June, 1975, and 31st October, 1975, the petitioner sold items of machinery for Rs. 90,000 and 86,000 respectively to a private limited company called Premier Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Madras. The aggregate sale value of machinery in the sum of Rs. 1,76,000 was considered by the assessing authority, who brought to assessment Rs. 1,63,000 thereof as taxable sales turnover. The petitioner objected to this assessment in appeal. The petitioner contended that no sale at all was involved in the transfer of the machinery to the private limited company, because the consideration received by the petitioner was not cash, but only the equity shares of that very company. The receipt of fully-paid shares as consideration, it was contended, tended to make the transaction not a sale, but only a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Muthu Vs. Assistant Sub-inspector. R.P.F.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1309
ORDERSingaravelu. J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal P.C. by the accused for quashing the proceedings against him in C. C. No. 948 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari.2. The respondent namely Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Erode, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that, on 26-7-1982 at about 3 p.m. he found the petitioner carrying a gunny bag which on search found to contain two railway dynamo belts. Therefore, prosecution was launched for an offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner (accused) has filed this petition for quashing the prosecution raising various contentions.3. Firstly, it is contended that the Assistant Sub-Inspector. R.P.F. has no power to investigate the case and only the regular police who can initiate, investigate and file the report into Court. This argument is not. tenable in law in ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopalakrishna and Bros., a Firm Represented by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ428
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein filed an application, O.P. No. 40 of 1975 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act on the file of the District Munsif, Karur for a direction to the respondent to sell a vacant site that was leased to him and in respect of which he claimed benefits under the said Act. His case as set out in the original petition was as follows :--The property in question is a vacant site which belonged to the predecessor in title of the respondent, that in a partition the said property has been allotted to the respondent, that the said property was originally taken on lease by the petitioner's father, Swaminatha Pillai along with one Velayutha Nadar in the year 1952 for their partnership business in timber styled as Gopalakrishna & Company, that later Velayutha Nadar got out of the partnership on 7tb October, 1956 and Swaminatha Pillai became the sole proprietor of the business, that the superst...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »