Chennai Court August 1982 Judgments
Ponniah Chettiar Vs. S. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ172
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two revision petitions are preferred by one Ponniah Chettiar who is admittedly one of the tenants under the respondent and against whom an eviction order was sought before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Periakulam in H.R.C.O.P. No. 45 of 1978 on his file under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and granted by the Rent Controller, which order was confirmed on appeal by the appellate authority (Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul), in C.M.A. No. 40 of 1980.2. We shall first set out the facts of the case, giving rise to these revision petitions, before discussing the questions of law raised by the petitioner in this case. It will be convenient to refer to the revision-petitioner as the tenant and the respondent herein as the landlord, in this judgment.3. The landlord is the owner of a building in the municipal town of Theni, which forms one block. A plan Exhibit A-...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Shanmugavelu and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC12(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These are two appeals filed by the two assesses under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the suo motu revisional orders passed by the Board of Revenue revising the appellate orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Pollachi, relating to the assessment year 1968-69. Since these tax cases arise out of the common order of the Board of Revenue and the issues involved in them are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The appellant in T.C. No. 784 of 1977 was a dealer in cane jaggery and he reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 13,78,024.64 for the year ending 31st March, 1969, in the returns in form A-2. However, the dealer claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 6,86,230.36 at the time of check of accounts as being inter-State sales. His claim was not accepted by the assessing authority on the ground that the turnover on which exemption is claimed has not been shown to relate to inter-State sales...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Kuttayan Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.V.R. Surendranathachary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ443
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. The above civil revision petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal had been referred to this Bench by the order of His Lordship, the Officiating Chief Justice, for an authoritative pronouncement on the question whether a suit instituted during the period of moratorium, during which period the institution of suits are prohibited by the provisions of Act XV of 1976, is to be dismissed as not maintainable or stayed till the expiry of the period during which the moratorium subsists. The above reference is necessitated in view of the conflict of decisions of this Court, one set of decisions taking the view that the suit must be dismissed and the another set of decisions, laying down that such suits ought to be stayed till the moratorium period is over.2. Before referring to the conflicting decisions on this question it will be useful to set out the relevant sections of Act XV of 1976. Section 2(b) defines 'agriculturist' and the same is as follows:2(b). 'agric...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Pichaimanickan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR251(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following three questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion that the Department had not proved that the assessee was the owner of the contraband gold is a reasonable view to take on the facts found and is legally valid (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the sum of Rs. 29,200 from the assessment for 1964-65 and (3) Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there is further burden of proof on the Department to apply section 69A and bring to tax the value of the gold bars seized from the assessee ?' 2. The assessee and one M. S. Ameen were found in possession of 500 tolas of gold at Egmore Railway Station by the Customs and Central Excise authorities, on April 8, 1963. They were arrested and the gold was seized and confiscated by Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. Indian Metal and Meta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: [1983]141ITR40(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a firm of 9 partners carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of brass sheets, circles and stainless steel sheets and circles under the trade name 'Kumbum'. It has put up a building in Mount Road, Madras, known as 'T.N.K. House' in which are built four cinema theaters viz., Devi, Devi Paradise, Devi Kala and Devi Bala. Besides the said four theaters, there other portions let out to certain offices. The assessee originally filed a return for the assessment year 1971-72 on October 8, 1972, claiming a business loss of Rs. 5,01,998. Subsequently, on March 11, 1974, it filed a revised return claiming a business loss of Rs. 5,14,190. In so doing it had deducted Rs. 34,008 being 50% of the expenditure incurred in providing carpets and screens in the two theaters, Devi and Devi Paradise, which were inaugurated on May 23, 1970, and July 5, 1970, respectively, as revenue expenditure. It also claimed depreciation at 15% on Rs. 4,27,231, being the cost of th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR431(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is an individual deriving income from interest on securities, house property, lorry business and other sources. She is also a partner in a firm, Messers. Pioneer Transports. For the assessment year 1971-72, the ITO determined the profit in respect of the income from the lorry business at Rs. 8,347 after negative the claim of the assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 47,644 in the firm of Meesrs. Pioneer Transports relating to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, on the ground that the assessee has not satisfied the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, herein after referred to as 'to be eligible for the set-off claimed. 2. The said disallowance of the assessee's claim of unabsorbed depreciation was taken in appeal to the AAC : but without success. The assessee, therefore, took the matter further to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the AAC and rej...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raju Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)17; [1984]147ITR212(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the assessee is the same in all these cases and the points involved are also the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The assessee is a lorry body builder. For the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the assessee had made investments in his own name as well as in the name of his wife. He had also borrowed money from outsiders. The ITO completed the assessments in respect of those years without a through probe and investigation regarding the genuineness of the loans claimed by the assessee. Long after the completion that the assessment, the commissioner of Income -tax came to the conclusion that the assessment orders passed by the ITO were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, in exercise of his power of suo motu revision under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, set aside the assessments and directed the ITO to pass fresh assessment orders after looking into all the borrowals made by the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam by Its Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ43
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The appellant which is the Idol of Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, represented by its Executive Officer, claims patta under Section 5(2) (it) of Act XXX of 1963 The respondents numbering six claim patta under Section 8(i) of the said Act. Respondents are represented by Mr. Kumar, the learned Counsel. The lands involved in this case are situated in Easamakorai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District They measure 2 88 acres in survey field S. No 74/1971 and 1.16 acres in survey field S. No. 74/2. Even though the respondents claim patta under Section 8(1), during enquiry by the Settlement Tahsildar, they contended that the land has been lawfully transferred in their favour and as such they are entitled to patta under Section 8(2) (ii). The Settlement Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli granted patta to the respondents herein under Section 8(2) (i) (b). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred C.M.A. No. 48 of 1975 before the Minor Inams Ab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›