Chennai Court September 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saravanbhava Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR856(Mad)
Ramanujan, J.1. The assessee who is the same in both the cases is a private limited company. In the assessment year 1973-74, corresponding to the previous year ending with March 31,1973, 3.482 equity shares of the erstwhile shareholders were purchased by M/s. S. K. Khanna and others. Prior to this year of change, the assessee had incurred losses. The unabsorbed business loss, depreciation, development rebate and allowance under s. 80J up to the inclusive of the assessment year 1972-73 were as follows : RsBusiness loss 1,96,433Depreciation 3,62,421Development rebate 1,97,44080J allowance 2,58,0522. In the assessment year 1973-74 also, the assessee had incurred loss to the time of Rs. 54,390.The assessee claimed that the unabsorbed losses and allowances should be carried forward and added to the loss of the assessment year 1973-74 and allowed to be carried forward further. The ITO, however, did not accept this claim of the assessee not the ground that in view of the change in the shareho...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. D. Rajesekaran Kamak
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)12; [1984]147ITR769(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, for its opinion at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 19,500, being the value of the accountable person's half share in the family residential house, should be excluded in computing the value of his share in the family properties, for the purposes of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. One Thiru Kamak Dharmaraj Nadar died on September 19, 1970. He was the karta of the HUF consisting of himself and his only son, D. Rajasekaran Kamak. The deceased was carrying on business of purchase and sale of iron, steel, hardware, building materials, etc., as sole proprietor thereof. Besides, he was also selling the goods manufactured by certain other companies. He had executed a will be queathing all his properties to his only son, the accountable person. 3. The Asst. Controller, by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Bhandari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR500(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. As all the three tax cases relate to the same assessee for different years and as the issues involved are also the same, they are dealt with together.2. The assessee created a trust called 'Dileep Kumar Marriage Trust' by a deed dated January 22, 1969, for the benefit of the prospective wife of his minor son, Dileep Kumar. On the same day the assessee's wife created a trust called 'Pradeep Kumar Marriage Trust' for the benefit of the prospective wife of another minor son, Pradeep Kumar. After creating the two trusts, the assessee made cash gifts on various dates to the extent of Rs. 17,500 to the 'Dileep Kumar Marriage Trust' and the assessee's wife made cash gifts on various dates to the extent of Rs. 37,500 to 'Pradeep Kumar Marriage Trust', the assessee made cash gift of Rs. 22,500 and his wife made cash gift of Rs. 32,500. In the original assessment of the assessee for the year 1970-71. the income accruing to the trust was not taken note of. After completion of the...
Tag this Judgment!The India Leather Corporation Pvt. Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]56STC1(Mad)
1. The petitioner, a private limited company (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), reported for the year 1970-71 a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,31,85,496.37 and Rs. 83,142.89 respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. By an order dated 25th September, 1971, the Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Central Assessment Circle, determined the total and taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 4,39,31,847.42 and Rs. 19,05,391.44 respectively. Later, by an order dated 28th August, 1972, the order dated 25th September, 1971, was rectified by refixing the purchase turnover of raw hides and skins at Rs. 18,76,620.29 as against Rs. 18,11,981.59 determined earlier. It was also found out by the assessing authority that in the original assessment dated 25th September, 1971, exemption had been granted on the purchase value of chemicals imported by the assessee and distributed to certain subsidiary concerns. The assessing authority estimated the sale value of the chemicals so dis...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Majeeth Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ912
1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of an individual going by the name of Palani Baba. He was detained on 9-8-1982 by an order of the District Magistrate of Periyar District. This order was later approved by the State Government. The detention was purported to be made under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The test of the order said that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain Palani Baba to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order.2. Two documents were relied on by the detaining authority as materials for formulating its grounds of detention. One was the verbatim transcript by an official stenographer of a speech in Tamil made by the detenu at Erode on 3-8-1982. The other was an affidavit sworn to by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode, who was a member of the police force in attendance at the meeting.3. The grounds of detention were two in number. One was that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Madras Rubber Factory L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)271; [1983]144ITR678(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this reference is an Indian company. Under collaboration with an American company called Mans-field Tyre and Rubber Compant Inc., the assessee set up an automobile tyre manufacturing unit. The collaboration agreement provided for payment by the assessee to Mansfield royalties or fees in consideration of the supply by Mansfield of specifications, formulae and other technical information for carrying on production in the factory. These fees were to be calculated as a particular fraction or percentage of the gross sale value of the tyres and other products produced by the factory. The assessee claimed that the fees paid by it to Manfiel'd consitute current revenue expenditure and must be allowed as such in the computation of its income. The ITO, however, disallowed 25% of the fees paid to Manfield on the score that it represented capital expenditure. The disallowance by the officer on this account was based on the theory that the technical know-how g...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.V. Jayaraman Vs. Murugan Bus Service and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad210
ORDER1. The revision relates to the grant of stage carriage permit on the route from Nagalur to Erode. The distance is 46 kms. There were six applicants before the Regional Transport Authority which at its hearing on 18-1-1977, preferred the respondent in this revision petition, for reasons stated in the order. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Appellate Authority by the revision petitioners as well as another, Kannan Transport, in App. Nos. 213 and 192 of 1977. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the matter in the order dated 28-3-1978, and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders, the present revision petition has been preferred by A.M.V.Jayaraman alone. The respective qualifications of the petitioner and the respondent may be stated in the following tabular statement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner (A.M.V.Jayaraman) Respondent (Murug...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Tractors and Farms Equipment Ltd. Vs. First Additional L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ403Mad
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a conviction for consumption of liquor under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act will amount to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The facts may be stated as follows. The petitioner is the management of Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd, Madras. The second respondent, Doss, was an employee under the management on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 260. According to the management, the second respondent was engaged under a contract basis along with others to load tractors manufactured by the management on the railway wagons at Korukkupet railway yard as and when railway wagons are available. While so, the management came to know that the second respondent was said to have been arrested for consuming liquor on 1-2-1976 and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 60 by the Magistrate. Between 1-2-76 and 16-2-76 he did not turn up for work. On 17-2-76 when the second respondent turne...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Shah and anr. Vs. N. Visalakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ186
S. Mohan, J.1. These two revisions are filed by the tenants who are aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority had directed the eviction on the ground that the landlady's married daughter and son are required to be provided with separate residence as contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act while the Rent Controller was of the view that the evidence of P.W. 1 could not be accepted. How the matter was approached by the appellate authority was admittedly the married daughter and the son of the landlady were living along with the landlady and the family itself consisting of 14 members and therefore this is a case in which the bona fides had been fully made out. In seeking to revise this order what is contended by Mr. Udairaj Gulecha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is as follows: It is the duty of the landlady to enter into the box and depose to the bona fi...
Tag this Judgment!Maritime Collector of Central Excise Vs. East Asiatic Company (India) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT202(Mad)
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 15-6-1978 of Natarajan, J. allowing Writ petition No. 4228 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein. In the writ petition, the respondent herein prayed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondent on the file of the first appellant in C. No. VI/Y/15/19/63- EC and quash the order passed therein dated 12-4-1971 as ultimately confirmed by the second appellant herein by his order No. 766 of 1975 dated 12-11-1975 and consequently direct the refund of the sum of Rs. 1,31,240.77 being the amount withheld and adjusted against the subsequent refunds due to the respondent herein. The appellants herein held that the two demands made on the respondent herein are legal and valid and they are therefore amounts payable to the Government in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and by virtue of the powers conferred under Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »