Chennai Court March 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.A.E. (i) Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR269(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion, at the instinct of the Revenue : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum reprinting 'incremental liability' towards gratuity of the current year was deductible from the profit of the year ?' 2. The assessee, in this case, is a private limited company manufacturing and erecting transmission towers. For the accounting year ending on June 30, 1965, corresponding to the assessment year 1966-67, it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,09,575 as provision for gratuity for two of it full time directors by name Sri C. Valdettarao and Sri G. Abbagnane. The ITO did not allow the same on the ground that gratuity fund has not been recognised by the Commissioner of income-tax and that it was only a provision and not an actual payment. He also took note of the fact that the provision has been made on the basis of twelve year' salary for one director and 9 1/4 years' salary for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu - I Vs. Late Rani Meyyammai Achi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR121(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the questions referred in both the cases are the same, they are disposed of together. Having regard to the fact that the facts which gave rise to the question of law referred are substantially the same, it is enough if the facts in T. C. No. 1186 of 1977 are given. 2. The assessee in that case is an individual deriving income from various sources including income from dividends. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 the ITO computed the gross dividend received by the assessee during the relevant previous year on the shares held by him in the various companies as Rs. 9,950 and interest received by him as Rs. 6,304. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 21,101 as interest paid on moneys borrowed for being invested in shares from and out of which the aforesaid dividends and interest income were received, and that was allowed. The assessee also claimed deduction of Rs. 3,000 allowable u/s. 80L of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO, however, rejected the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Sri Sabari Mills Ltd. Vs. M. Kulandai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ254Mad
1. The appeal is against an award of the Additional Commissioner for workmen's Compensation. The respondent was working as a watchman in the mills of the appellant. On 30th November, 1978, he was attacked by four persons who entered the mill premises and assaulted him by lathis. He claimed a lumpsum payment of compensation of Rs. 17,640, half monthly payment of Rs. 580 from 30th November, 1978 to 22nd April, 1979 and medical expenses of Rs. 905-50. His case was that he was working as a watchman and his wages were Rs. 470-60 per month. On 30th November, 1978, when his shiftwork was between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., he came to the mill at 1-50 p.m. placed the cycle inside the cycle stand and came straight to the watchman's shed. The duty watchman was allowed to go away and the applicant was wearing his uniform. While so wearing one Ganesan came and pulled his legs. Ganesan and four others began to beat him with lathis. The bones in two hands and the ankles of the legs were broken and the knees...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sabari Mills Ltd. Vs. M. Kulandai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC246
S. Mohan, J.1. The appeal is against an award of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The respondent was working as a watchman in the mills of the appellant. On 30th of November, 1978, he was attacked by four persons who entered the mill premises and assaulted him with la this. He claimed a lumpsum payment of compensation of Rs. 17,640, half monthly payment of Rs. 580 from 30th November, 1978 to 22nd April, 1979 and medical expenses of Rs. 905.50. His case was that he was working as a watchman and his wages were Rs. 470.60 per month. On 30th of November, 1978, when his shiftwork was between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., he came to the mill at 1.50 p.m. placed the cycle inside the cycle stand and came straight to the watchman's shed. The duty watchman was allowed to go away and the applicant was wearing his uniform. While so wearing one Genesan came and pulled his legs. Ganesan and four others began to beat him with lathis. The bones in two hands and the ankles of the legs were...
Tag this Judgment!Mycol (Private) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]150ITR609(Mad)
Balsubrahmanayan, J.1. There is pretty little law directly involved in this income-tax reference. It, however, demands a wholesome approach to corporate taxation. The assessee is private company. The managing director of this company is a married woman called Aunsuyadevi. The company was described by its learned counsel, Mr Veeraraghavan, as a 'family company'. This is an expression used in serious legal discussion even in England. The phrase occurs in one of Justice Rowlatt's judgments. It you turn to company law, you know of no such company. We have heard of one-man companies, an impossibility under corporate law, but very much of a phenomenon if you look at corporate realities. Most one-man companies are, however, man-and-wife companies or family companies. Income-tax law has had to do with business houses and trading families which have incorporated themselves as companies. To many family men and women, innocent of company law, it is quite an artificial situation of find husband an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. East India Industries (M) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Mad)103; [1983]139ITR1059(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These two references concern the assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1970-71 of an assessee, by name East India Industries (Madras) Private Limited. The assessee carries on business in the manufacture of waterproof paper. This constitutes on head of income. The assessee also owns house property, the annual letting value of which is rendered liable to income-tax under another head. There questions arose in the assessee's assessment. Ultimately, the Tribunal resolved all the questions in favour of the assessee. At the instance of the Commissioner, however, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of entire urban land tax paid during the relevant previous accounting year in computing the income from the property bearing No. 215, T.H. Road, ir respective of the year or years to which the payment relates 2. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!P. Silamban Vs. G. Ramamurthy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ107
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur in P. No. 185 of 1980, dated 26th November, 1980 on the petition filed under Section 3(4)(a) of Act XXV of 1955 for evicting the tenant from the lands for non-payment of lease rent for Fasli 1388 and 1389. A preliminary order was passed by the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur, directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,191.09, together with costs of Rs. 10 on or before 25th November, 1980. On 26th November, 1980, the tenant was absent and no payment or deposit was also made. In the circumstances, the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur held that the tenant had rendered himself liable to be evicted from the lands. It was so held by the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur directing the tenant to hand over peaceful possession of the lands to the landlord. Aggrieved bv the above order of the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur, the tenant has come forward with this civil revision petition under...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Muthuramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: [1986]157ITR654(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case was a partner in a firm 'M/s. Metro Handlooms'. By a declaration dated March 12, 1973, the assessee threw his individual interest in the partnership in the family hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family consisting of his father, himself and his brothers. In respect of the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer negatived the assessee's claim that he has thrown his interest in the partnership into the hotchpot of the family and impressed the same with the character of joint family property and, therefore, his share of income from the partnership has to be assessed in the hands of the family and assessed the entire share income from the partnership in his individual assessment. 2. Aggrieved against the said assessment, the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the assessee was at full liberty to throw his interest in the firm into the common hotchpot and impress it with the character of joint famil...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Natarajan Vs. Gnanambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad184
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 3850 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner herein. He filed the suit for directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance of the purchase price of Rs. 7,900 after duly cancelling and registering the security bond with the Register of Assurance within the time that may be specified by the court.2. There was a compromise both in O. S. No. 3050 of 1974 and in O. S. NO. 7657 of 1976. According to the said compromise, the defendant in the suit has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property at the cost of the plaintiff on payment of a sum of Rs. 10,220 made up of Rs. 7,900 being the balance of sale price and Rs. 2320 being the arrears of rent. The amount has to be paid on or before 31-3-1979. The compromise decree further states that in default of payment of Rs. 10,220, on or before 31-5-1979, the suit wil...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sambandam Vs. Sirkali Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ227
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The first respondent in E.P. No. 66 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif of Sirkali is the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein as the plaintiff in C.T.I.A. No. 317 of 1973-74, got an award from the Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies, Sirkali, against the petitioner and the second respondent herein on 30th May, 1974, under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, (LIII of 1961). In that proceeding, the first respondent herein claimed a sum of Rs. 2,270-65 due on a surety bond, dated 30th November, 1971 with further interest at one paise per rupee per mensem from the date of making the reference to the date of recovery and costs. During the enquiry, the petitioner and the second respondent herein remained ex parte. The arbitrator directed the petitioner and the second respondent herein to pay to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 2,349-22, with interest thereon at two paise per rupee per mensem from the date of the awa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »