Chennai Court November 1982 Judgments
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.R. Ranganathan Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR456(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This group of cases has to be considered, in our judgment, in the gross and in a groupal sense. 2. There was a partnership concern called 'Lakshmi Finance Corporation', Vellore, in which there are as many as nine partners by the names of (1) Ranganathan, (2) Manner, (3) Balaraman, (4) Radhakrishnan, (5) Padmakumar, (6) Govardhan Chetty, (7) Venugopal Chetty, (8) Parankusan, and (9) Sripathi. Some of them are partners in their own right; some of them, for instance, Govardhan Chetty, Venugopal Chetty and Sripathi, are said to represent their respective joint family interests. All of them are married and have children, including minor children. All the partners have capital accounts in the partnership in which amounts stand to their respective credit. Early in January, 1970, within a duration of less than a week, some events happened in this partnership firm, the tax implications of which are the main concern of this group of income-tax references. Between January 1...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.C. Trading Corporation Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC62(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In this appeal from the order of the Board of Revenue, the question relates to single point taxation under entry 4(b) and (d)(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, before its amendment by Act 39 of 1973. Iron plates and steel plates are admittedly single point items. The assessee in this case sold sheet cuttings and plate cuttings in the course of its business. It is not quite clear whether the sheet cuttings and plate cuttings are out of steel plates or iron plates. But the assessee's contention before the assessing authority was that in either case they were not liable for multi-point sales tax. It was urged that the assessee had sold the iron and steel plates in the same form in which they were directly produced by the rolling mill. 2. The assessing authority, however, did not accept these contentions. The assessing authority held that the goods sold by the assessee were taxable at multi-point. The crucial findings of the a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sri Velan Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC10(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This is a revision by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent is a firm. It is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. As a dealer in ready-made garments and textiles, it is ordinarily assessable to sales tax on the turnover in those articles of merchandise. During the assessment year in question, namely, 1974-75, the assessee sold a car belonging to it for Rs. 5,000. The car was admittedly part of the business assets of the assessee. The assessee, however, objected to the inclusion of the amount of realisation on the sale of this car as part of the taxable turnover for the year in question, on the ground that it was not a dealer in old or second-hand cars. This objection was overruled by the assessing authority and the sum of Rs. 5,000 was included in the taxable turnover. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Tribunal deleted the amount from the taxable turnover on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Mysore Fertiliser Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR91(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee in this case, Mysore Fertiliser Company, owed tax of Rs. 1,42,402. Giving credit to the advance tax of Rs. 52,250, the liability left a balance of Rs. 90,251 to which must be added interest of Rs. 23,138. This liability arose on self-assessment. The assessee did not, however, pay the self-assessed tax, under s. 140A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the said assessment year. The ITO thereupon issued a show-cause notice, calling upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed under s. 140A(3) of the Act. It would appear that the assessee did not file any explanation in reply. The officer accordingly proceeded under the Section and levied a penalty of Rs. 4,800, even though, according to the officer, the maximum penalty leviable in the case would have been Rs. 47,525. This levy of penalty was cancelled by the AAC on the score that a Division Bench ruling of this court in A. M. Sali Maricar v. ITO : [1973...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Arulmurugan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC381(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This Full Bench is charged with deciding the following question : Whether an appellate authority can entertain C form declarations filed by a registered dealer at the appellate stage, either under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or the Rules made thereunder From 1st April, 1973, there is a statutory time-limit for furnishing C form declarations. The time-limit is prescribed by rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The source for this rule is to be found in the proviso to section 8(4) of the Act, as amended with effect from 1st April, 1973. According to rule 12(7), C form shall be furnished 'up to the time of assessment by the first assessing authority'. 2. There is, however, a provision for allowing further time on sufficient cause. A provision to this effect is found in the proviso to section 8(4) of the Act. The language of the section is 'within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit'. 'Tha...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Kareem Vs. National Insurance Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ240
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The question of jurisdiction arises in this revision in the following manner. A contract was entered into between the revision petitioner and a third party (insured) that the goods delivered at Kothagiri (Nilgiris District) will have to be transported to Cochin. But it so happened, owing to torrential rains, that the tea forming the subject-matter of the contract got damaged. Thereafter the National Insurance Company got itself subrogated to the rights of the insured and filed the suit at Coimbatore. Admittedly, subrogation took place at Coimbatore. So the question arose whether the suit ought to have been filed at the place where the contract was entered into or at the place where the damages took place, both of them being in Nilgiris District. In contradistinction it was contended that Coimbatore Court had jurisdiction. The Court below has answered the same in the affirmative. In seeking to revise its order what is urged before me is that the suit in essence is on...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Kapoor and Company Vs. A. Rathinam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ209
S. Mohan, J.1. The admitted facts of the case are as follows. The respondent is the landlord of premises bearing Door No. 8, Smith's Road, Madras-2. He sought eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the revision petitioner sub-let a portion of the petition premises in favour of Asian Enterprises who is not a party before me but who was arrayed as the second respondent in the petition for eviction.2. The revision petitioner, in opposition to eviction, contended that he had every right to let out the premises in favour of the sublessee. In fact, even prior to the occupation of the premises by him, the sub-lessee was in possession of a portion of the petition premises. In other words, the original tenant M/s. Ravi Raj & Company had sub-let a portion to the Asian Enterprises and they are in occupation since July, 1977, itself while the revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›