Chennai Court January 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M. Radhakrishniah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Mad)326; [1984]147ITR133(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a case of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, as it stood after amendment by the Finance Act, 1968, but before its further amendment by the T.L. (Amend) Act, 1975. The IAC who levied the penalty in the first instance recorded a finding that the amount of income in respect of which the assessee had concealed particulars of his income was Rs. 55,830. The IAC accordingly levied minimum penalty at the same figure, namely, Rs. 55,830. On appeal, the Tribunal sustained the penalty to the extent of Rs. 35,500 made up of the following two figures : Rs.Concealment of particulars of income underthe head 'Business' 14,000Income from Other sources 21,500Total 35,500 2. On the first item, the Tribunal's finding was as under : 'As far as the business income is concerned, the Income-tax Officer had to resort to an estimate, because there were several omission. An analysis has been given of the deficiency in stock between January 20, 1967, and March 31, 1967. The...
K.P. Kandasami Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Mad)303; [1985]156ITR639(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in this group of cases is a registered firm with three partners carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of handloom piece-goods. For the assessment years 1953-54 to 1961-62, the Income-tax Officer assessed the firm's income on the the basis of revised returns furnished by the assessee. The revised returns were submitted by the assessee firm in the following circumstances. For 1962-63, the assessee filed a return of income on December 26, 1962. The income-tax Officer, in the course of the proceedings for assessment for wheat year, noticed credits appearing in the firm's accounts in the names of certain multani bankers. Those multani bankers were reputed in the Income-tax Department to have indulged in hawala transactions, that is to say, in aiding income-tax assessees to post credit entries in their accounts as though they had obtained loans on hundis and had repaid them while no money passed as loans, nor were any money returned as repaymen...
P.C. Dharmalinga Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR588(Mad)
Balasubrahamanyan, J. 1. It is a short point we have to decide in this case. The assessee-family is a trader in cloth and yarn. The karta of the assessee-family took money from the funds in this business and advanced the money as a loan to a transport company in which both he and his wife were interested as shareholders. The transport company ran into a loss, and there was no prospect of the money being repaid by the company. The assessee, accordingly, wrote-off the amount in the books of the yarn and cloth trade. The write-off amounted to Rs. 90,771. An allowance was claimed in respect of this amount as a bad debt in the assessment year 1973-74. But this claim was negatived not only by the Departmental authorities, but also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that this was not an allowable bad debt because it was not a debt which had been incurred in the course of, or for the purpose of, or incidental to, the assessee's cloth and yarn business. 2. The assessee has challenged the determ...
Arcot Mills Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC356(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Three textile mills in this State arranged for import of Egyptian cotton from the UAR (United Arab Republic) on the basis of their actual user's import licences. The petitioner purchased the cotton from them. The question in this revision is whether, for purposes of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the said purchases can be held to have taken place not in this State, but in the UAR. 2. The petitioner claimed before the taxing authority that the goods arranged to be imported from the UAR were still lying in the UAR ports when the petitioner entered into its contracts of purchase with the three importing mills in the State. It was accordingly urged that the purchases took place only in the UAR. 3. This claim was negatived by all the authorities. The Tribunal, in particular, rejected the claim as not proven. The petitioner has relied on certain letters written by the importing mills, which were stated to recite the terms of the agreements of sale between ...
The Tirunagar Co-operative Stores Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC39(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is a provision relating to exemption from sales tax. The section declares that any dealer who deals in the goods specified in the Third Schedule to the Act shall not be liable to pay any sales tax under the Act. The section, however, enacts that this exemption is subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. 2. The Third Schedule to the Act specifies certain goods, by description, and sets them down, seriatim, in various entries. Entry 4 of this Schedule specifies the following goods : 'Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, as defined in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944).'3. The assessee in this case is a consumers' co-operative society dealing in all kinds of things, including foreign-made and Indian-made textiles. In the year 1974-75, the assessee came by a quantity of...
Ramakrishna Industrials Private Limited Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ227
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This appeal is from an interlocutory order of Shanmukham, J. The order directed the appointment of a number of Advocates as Court Commissioners to take an inventory of the assets and accounts of a Company in Coimbatore. The Company is the appellant before us. It contends that the order is wrong.2. Mr. Vasantha Pai, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, raises a preliminary objection. He says that we should not entertain this appeal.3. The appeal is filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. This section provides for an appeal against any order passed by a Court of first instance in a winding up matter. The section says that an appeal is available against such an order in the same way as an appeal is available from any other order of a Court for which the law provides. This is the substance of the words of the section. They are fairly wide words in which the appeal provision is cast. But the Supreme Court in Shankarlal Aggarwal's case...
Sri Mahaliamman Temple and Vigneswaran Koil, Represented by Its Truste ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ442
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant-temple is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration of her title to the plaint A and B schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family of one C.S. Arumugham Pillai and his son Manickam. The plaintiff is the widow of Manickam. Manickam pre-deceased his father Arumugham in the year 1934. Arumugham died in 1946 leaving his widow Sadaichi Ammal, who also died in 1957. Arumugham Pillai died leaving a will Exibit B-11, dated 29th August, 1982. Under the will he bequeathed a life-estate in respect of A Schedule properties in favour of his wife Sadaichi Ammal and the remainder to the first defendant temple with certain directions for the performance of certain charities. In the B Schedule a life-interest was given to the plaintiff and the remainder to the first defendant temple for the performance of the said charities. The case of the plaintiff was t...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Madras Vs. T. N. K. Govindaraju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR588(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - This group of wealth-tax reference arising under the W.T. Act, 1957, concerns a group of wealth-tax assessee who formed themselves into a syndicate and purchased an estate called 'Glenorock Estate' in Gudallur in the Nilgiris District. The total extent of the estate is 4,465 acres. At the material time relevant for the group of reference, 345 acres of the estate were under rubber cultivation; 90 acres were planted with office; cardamom in 70 acres; eucalyptus grains and miscellaneous plants in 20 acres. Absolute rock and barren rocky ground accounted for 405 acres. Nearly 500 acres were covered by thickly grown bamboo clusters. The rest of the area was covered by evergreen and mixed type of forests. Wherever the forests were not in command, the ground was covered with a wild growth of grass. The average rainfall in the region is about 115 to 120 inches during south-west monsoon and 15 to 25 inches during north-east monsoon. Even during March and April, there are t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›