Chennai Court October 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. Chelpark Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR668(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the rule 1(i) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for arriving at the chargeable profits for the purpose of levy of surtax, the Income-tax Officer was justified in adding the short-term capital loss of Rs. 18,923 ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company manufacturing ink. For the assessment year 1974-75, while computing the chargeable profits for the purpose of surtax, the ITO arrived at the total income, after excluding short-term capital loss of Rs. 18,923 and rejecting the assessee's claim that the loss should not be so excluded. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the ITO's order. On further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee contended that the capital gains for the purpose of s. 4...
Madurai Municipal Corporation Through Its Executive Authority the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ346
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,739-33 with costs on the following facts and circumstances:2. The plaintiff was employed as a Revenue Officer under the defendant Corporation.He was placed under suspension with effect from 2-3-1960 pending an enquiry on certain charges of criminal misappropriation. On completion of such enquiry he was dismissed from service with effect from 25-9-1962. In the normal course he would have been superannuated with effect from 1-10-62. The plaintiff then filed W.P. No. 180 of 1984 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with the dismissal order dated 25-9-1962 and to quash the same. That petition was dismissed. However, when he filed W.A. No. 216 of 1967, a Division Bench of this Court held that the order of dismissal was contrary to Article 311 of the Constitution, in that...
income-tax Officer Vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD336(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal relates to the claim to the assessee for relief under section 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assesse is an individual. The assessee sold certain lands and reinvested the proceeds in the purchase of agricultural lands. In the original assessment dated 25-9-1976, the claim of the assessee for relief under section 54 of the Act was not granted. Later, a reassessment was made by which the capital gains which had been accepted as returned at Rs. 69,656 were redetermined at Rs. 1,12,830. This reassessment was canceled by the AAC on appeal on 22-2-1980. The ITO passed an order giving effect to the order of the AAC on appeal on 29-4-1980 on receipt of that order, the assessee sought rectification on 27-10-1980 and claimed relief under section 54B and 80T of the Act. On 29-8-1981, the ITO rejected the application stating that it was barred by limitation. The assessee approached the Commissioner under section 264 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. North Arcot Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)51; [1985]151ITR238(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's findings that for the purpose of computing the profits of the industrial undertaking under section 80J(1), the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years will have to be set off last after the determination of the current year's relief under section 80J is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society and the ITO computed its total income for the assessment year 1971-72, as follows : Rs. Rs. Rs.'Interest on securities 2,000Business income before allowanceof depreciation 11,51,247Less : Depreciation for current year 5,58,678Brought forward depreciation 6,36,173 11,84,860(sic) 412---------- ------33,613(sic) 2,412----------- ------ 3. Balance depreciation to be carried forward 31,201 Development rebate : Assessment years Rs.1967-68 7,20,4051968-69 66,5591969-70 nil19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sujani Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)129; [1985]151ITR653(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In T.Cs. Nos. 130 to 134 of 1978, the following common question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the materials on records, the finding of the Tribunal that no part of the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds could be disallowed in any of the years, viz., 1969-70 to 1973-74, is justified ?' and in T.C. No. 408 of 1978, again at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the materials on records, the finding of the Tribunal that no part of the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds could be disallowed is justified ?' 2. T. Cs. Nos. 130 to 134 of 1978 relate to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1973-74 and T. C. No. 408 of 1978 relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee herein is a limited company in which the late G....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i, Madras Vs. Blue MountaIn Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Mad)58; [1985]151ITR616(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following four questions have been referred to this court by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the Revenue in T.C. Nos. 378 to 383 of 1978 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire managing agency commission payable by the assessee to M/s. Kothari & Sons (Agencies) Private Limited was an admissible deduction for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowances of proportionate sitting fees of Rs. 3,406 and Rs. 3,560 for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire managing agency commission payable by the assessee to M/s. Kothari and Sons (Agencies) Private Limited was an admissible deduction for the as...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. India Motor Part ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR98(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a company assessed to surtax. The company had a general reserve of Rs. 6,03,329 as on April 1, 1967, and for the year ending March 31, 1968, the net profit amounted to Rs. 5,18,217. On August 19, 1968, at a meeting of the board of directors, a sum of Rs. 1,30,083 out of the profits was appropriated to the general reserve. By the report of the directors dated August 20, 1968, a dividend of Rs. 7 per share which would absorb Rs. 1,68,000 was recommended, subject to approval by the shareholders, which was also accorded by the shareholder at the meeting held on September 27, 1968. For the assessment year 1969-70, the income of the assessee was finally determined as Rs. 9,53,269 after granting a deduction in a sum of Rs. 37,734 in respect of dividend. The original assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1969-70 was completed on July 24, 1970, determining the net chargeable profit a...
ShahabuddIn Vs. S. Nohaman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad116
Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal at the Instance of the first plaintiff in 0. S. 24 of 1975, Sub-Court, Mayuram, the dismissal of that suit laid by the appellant and one deceased Mohammed Ibrahim in a representative capacity under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure after obtaining the consent in writing of the Advocate General, praying for the removal of the first respondent from trusteeship and appointment of fresh trustees, for a direction to the first respondent to hand over the trust properties in schedules A and B to the plaint and the income there from and for the framing of a scheme for the proper administration of the wakf and its properties and the utilisation of the income for purposes mentioned in the wakf deeds and for other incidental reliefs, is challenged.2. One Haji Udumansa Rowther was the great grandfather of the appellant and the first respondent. On 27-7-1919, he executed a deed of wakf in respect of the A schedule properties for the purpose of running an Arabic school...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry, Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ198
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. W.P. Nos. 798 & 833 of 1980.: The petitioner is the same in both the writ petitions. A few facts are necessary to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in these two writ petitions. The petitioner is an alienee from one R. Rukmani, wife of A. Ramalingam. The alienor of the petitioner got the lands in question under a settlement from her husband on 16.3.1970. The alienation in favour of the petitioner is dated 3.12.1973. Proceedings were initiated against A. Ramalingam under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973(Act 9 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appointed day under the Act is 24.1.1971; The date of commencement of the Act was 14.10.-1974. The alienation in favour of the petitioner having had taken place after the appointed day, but before the commencement of the Act, the mischief of Section 4(4) of the Act apparently came into play and the alienation in favour of the petitioner was treated as non est ...
Rahmania Trading Company Reptd., by Mohammed Yacob Vs. M.K. Pandarinat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ251
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes dated 29th March, 1983 made in M.P. No. 14 of 1982 in E.P. No. 752 of 1981 in H.R.C. No. 1896 of 1978.2. The respondent is the owner of premises No. 13, Anna Pillai Street, Madras-1. One Syed Ahamed was a partner of M/s. Rahmania Trading Company, the petitioner herein. The other partners of the firm were his brother, one Mohammed Yacob, and another Mohammed Yusuf. The firm was carrying on business originally at No. 64, Thatha Muthiappan Street, Madras-1.Under a registered lease deed dated 4th September, 1967 the respondent leased his premises No. 13, Anna Pillai Street, Madras-1 to 'Syed Ahamed, son of T.S. Abdul Rahman, Partner, Rahmania Trading Company, residing at No. 6, Vidyodaya Second East Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Madras-17' for the purpose of carrying on his business for a period of ten years on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. It is now stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »