Chennai Court June 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
Reported in: [1984]145ITR195(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question of law, which has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as follows : 'Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of cash subsidy received by the assessee on its exports would be attributable to the priority industry eligible for relief under section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, relief under that provision should be granted ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of presses, cutting tools and lapping wheels, which is a priority industry mentioned as item 8 in Schedule V to the I.T. Act, 1961. Priority industries are entitled to the relief under s. 80E under certain circumstances. The profits, with respect to which the assessee claimed relief under s. 80E and which the Department denied in the assessment, related to cash subsidies granted by the Govt. of India to the assessee in order to ...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Sundaram Vs. V. Balaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad225; (1983)1MLJ220
ORDER1. The 'landlord' within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control)Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the 'tenant' within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the Act in HRC No.1909 of 1980 on the file of the Eleventh Judge, Court of the Smail Causes, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Controller, Eviction was ordered on 10-11-1980. The respondent preferred HRA No.222 of 1981, to the concerned appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed for default on 28-9-1981. While the appeal was pending, there was on order of stay in M.P.No.107 of 1981. The respondent preferred M.P.No.631 of 1981 to set aside the order of dismissal for default on 16-10-1981. The provision quoted in the application was Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. Obviously...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kandan Vs. Madras Dock Labour Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ474Mad; (1983)IIMLJ82
Ramanujam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 6381 of 1980 dismissing the same in limine. 2. The circumstances under which the writ petition came to be filed before this Court can be briefly set out. The petitioner, who was a Reserve Pool Mazdoor, was dismissed from service on 6th March, 1980 by order of the Deputy Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, who was the disciplinary authority. The order of dismissal was served on the appellant on 22nd March, 1980. However, he filed an appeal against the order of dismissal to the Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, the appellate authority, on 25th April, 1980, after a delay of 20 days. In his memorandum of grounds of appeal, a prayer has been added for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the said appeal petition the appellant has been served with a communication, dated 12th May, 1980, by the Secretary of the Dock Labour Board, which is as follows - 'With reference to his appeal, dated 24th April, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswami Gounder (Alias) Venkatayyan and ors. Vs. Sundarammal and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ378
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. An interesting point has been raised in this appeal whether with respect to the water available in a well which is situated in S. No. 390 -3 and its irrigational potentialities had been considered in favour of the appellant herein there can be a restriction to the extent to which that water in the well cart be made use of.2. It is common ground that S. No. 392 belongs to the plaintiff which is known as Rangappa flowder's land and which is also shown in yellow colour in the Commissioner's plan. The defendant's land has been coloured with green pencil-S. No. 390/1 belongs to one Krishnappa Gowder and it is known as Krishnappa Gowder's land under the cultivation of the plaintiffs. The rough plan of the Commissioner shows the existence of this well, water of which is available for cultivation. It is with respect to the land beyond the line F.I. marked in the Commissioner's plan on the eastern side that there is a dispute now. The case of the appellant is that when once...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thangadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC279(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This revision is filed by the State against the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, deleting the quantum of penalty levied by the assessing authority under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, while sustaining the assessment made on the respondent-assessee. The assessee in this case was treated as a dealer in the groundnut oil by the assessing authority, rejecting the assessee's contention that he is only a broker and not a dealer in respect of the entire transaction in the assessment year. On this basis the assessing authority, in the course of best judgment, finalised the assessment holding that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax at a turnover of Rs. 66,532 and also a penalty of Rs. 4,039. The assessee disputed the entire assessment as also the levy of penalty before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessment having been sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the matter was taken to the Tribunal by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kannika Cycle Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC429(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal holding that the mirror, which is normally used as an accessory to cycles, will fall under entry 38 of the First Schedule and not under entry 102 of that schedule. 2. The assessee in this case is a dealer in cycles, and the taxable turnover reported by him for the assessment year 1979-80 was Rs. 1,50,691. In the course of the assessment, the assessing officer determined the turnover of sales of mirrors fitted to cycles and brought them to sales tax at 10 per cent while the assessee's claim was that it should be taxed at 6 per cent. The matter was taken in appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who also justified the assessment of the turnover in cycle mirrors under entry 102 of the First Schedule at 10 per cent. The matter was taken further in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee has sold the mirror as an accessory to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR1003(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the assessment year 1964-65 (year ending June 30, 1963), the assessee returned a loss of Rs. 2,75,355 in the sugar mill business. The ITO, however, did not accept the return, but after making an addition of Rs. 4,17,847 computed the income at Rs. 1,13,976. The addition of Rs. 4,17,847 by the ITO, to the income returned by the assessee, was under two heads: (1) Rs. 3,71,136 being the refund of excise duty and (2) 46,711, being the recovery of export losses, and this was challenged by the assessee before the AAC. The AAC deleted the addition of the sum of Rs. 4,17,847. The Revenue took the matter in appeal, and the Tribunal upheld the order of the AAC though slightly for a different reason. Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has sought and obtained a reference to this court on the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. Madras Radiators and P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR396(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this case arising under I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee had made a claim for deduction of Rs. 59,465 in the account year ended May 31, 1969, relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. The deduction claimed was in respect of the value of certain tools and implements. The assessee is a manufacturing concern. It produce radiator parts. In the process of manufacturing these articles, tools and implements are being used. It is needless to say that the tools are short-lived. They become use less or obsolete in a couple of years, so that the assessee has to be constantly replacing old tools with new ones. In terms of accounting, what the assessee does is to writ down the value of the tools every year by a certain figure, claiming the figure as a deduction, in arriving at the year's net profits. This deduction does not represent either an outgoing or an item of expenditure, but was claimed as an allowance by the assessee apparently as an itemised loss or, at any rate, as a...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamala Pictures (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR115(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company, which carried on the business of producing films and distributing the same. The memorandum and articles of association of the assessee-company permitted the company to carry on several other business of film production and distribution. Clause 16 of the articles of association enabled the company to acquire by purchase, hire, lease, exchange or otherwise, lands, buildings and hereditaments of any tenure or description and any estates or interest therein or any right over or connected with land and either to retain the same for the purpose of the company's business or to turn the same to account by selling, conveying, assigning or letting on lease. The assessee purchased on September 29, 1950 a plot of land measuring 198 grounds, equivalent to 10 acres and 89 cents, situate in the villages of Virugambakkam and Saligramam, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 from one Sanjeevi Naidu. At the time of the purchase of the said land, there was a...
Tag this Judgment!Manimegalai Janagaraj Etc., Etc. Vs. S. Alaghia Dass Etc., Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ481Mad
1. One Alaghia Doss was recruited as Upper Division clerk in the Postal Department by direct recruitment on 2nd February, 1942. Afterwards, he was promoted as Head Clerk in the cadre of Lower Selection Grade and was confirmed in that category of service in 1966. On a consideration of his merit and seniority, he was promoted by the General Manager, Tele Communications, Madras as Head Assistant in the cadre of Higher Selection Grade on 25th February, 1978 with effect from 1st March, 1978. This promotion was on ad hoc basis. The post of Head Assistant in the cadre of Higher Selection Grade is only one post. On 18th April, 1978, he was again promoted by the General Manager, Tele Communications, Madras as Head Assistant on a regular basis. Subsequently, on 22nd August, 1978, he was further promoted as Office Superintendent and posted in the only vacancy of Office Superintendent in the office of the General Manager, Tele Communications, Madras, which post he claims he is still holding. Presu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »