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 Vs. Rambal (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)45; [1988]169ITR50(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions have been referred, the following two questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion, as arising out of the order of the IT Appellate Tribunal. (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to development rebate at 35% on the value of machinery installed during the relevant previous years (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I for the asst. yr. 1970-71 despite the fact that the total income for that assessment year was determined as 'nil' by reason of setting off, the carried forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier assessment years 2. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 16-6-1965 and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bolts, nuts and screws for automobile and for other machinery. During the accounting years ending with 30-6-1969 and 30-6-1970, it had in...
W. Pappammal Vs. I. Chidambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad70; (1984)1MLJ148
ORDER1. In this civil revision petition at the instance of the defendant in 0. S. No. 426 -of 1.982, U Additional City Civil Cost, Madras, the principal question that arises for consideration is, whether the order of attachment passed by the court below accords with the provisions of 0. 38, R. 5, C. P. C., as amended by Act 104 of 1976 and is valid or is vitiated and void.2. The suit in 0. S. 4N of 1982 was laid by the respondent here against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,466.15 with further interest and other incidental relief . In 1. A. No. 12M of 082 filed on 22-1-IM, under 0. 38, R. 5, C. P. C., the respondent prayed for an order of attachment before judgment of two items of immovable We properties belonging to the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of that application, the respondent after referring to the circumstances leading up to the institution of The suit for the recovery of the amounts from the petitioner, stated that the petitioner is in highly in...
Second Gift-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Nirmala Rajasekharan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1983
Reported in: [1984]8ITD647(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri P. S. Dhillon, Judicial Member - The department has preferred this appeal against the order dated 10-12-1982 of Shri T. G. Nair, the AAC, who allowed the appeal against the order dated 31-1-1981 of Shri M. R. Raman, the second GTO, passed for the assessment year 1979-80.2. The only issue in this appeal is that a gift given to the daughter at the time of her betrothal is gift to be exempted under section 5(1) (vii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (the Act). The GTO took the view that gift of jewellery to the unmarried daughter for the purpose of her marriage on her betrothal is not at all gift on marriage. Since the transfer has not been made at the time of marriage, hence, premature. Accordingly, he disallowed the exemption at Rs. 10,000 out of the claim of Rs. 70,000 said to gifted on marriage to the daughter of the assessee.3. In appeal, the AAC took the view that section 5(1) (vii) says that the gift on the occasion of marriage of relative does not mean at the time of marria...
Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.S. Jagdeesan (Deceased) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad1
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in M. P. No. 1491 of 1981 in Distress Application No. 136 of 1980, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 61, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 188' (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of a Godrej typewriter distrained to the petitioner, The short facts are as under the first respondent became a tenant with effect from 15-3-80 of one P. S. Jagadeesan, since deceased, whose legal representatives are respondents 2 to 6, in this civil revision petition. Since he did not pay the rent and owed nearly a sum of Rupees 11,00oltowards arrears of rent, the landlord initiated proceedings for the issue of a 'distress warrant tinder Section 53 of the Act for Rs. 4000, being the arrears of rent from 1-7-1980 to 31110/1980. Among the goods distrained on 5-11-1980 was a Godrej typewriter. On 26-2-1981 the petitioner filed M.P. No. 22...
Kulittalai Cane Farms P. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (by Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR468(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by an assessee against the order dated August 12, 1977, of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, revising the income as computed by the assessing officer and refixing the tax payable by the assessee. 2. The assessee-Kulittalai Cane Farms Private Limited, Madras, had applied for and obtained permission to compound its agricultural income-tax in an extent of 679-63 ordinary acres corresponding to 611-13 standards acres on payment of Rs. 40,070.63 under s. 65 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the year 1969-70. During the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee, however, had filed a return of income declaring a net loss of Rs. 30,630.35. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer finalised the assessment under s. 17(3) of the Act determining the net income at Rs. 86,245.77 after allowing a deduction of 'the value of standing crops at the beginning of the year amounting to Rs. 1,76,290' among others, b...
T.M. Mohana Vs. V. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad14; (1984)1MLJ134
ORDER1. The defendant in O. S. No. 116 of 1979. I Additional Sub-Court Pondicherry, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of the Court below, holding that the petitioner cannot confront the respondent herein with a' document not filed or disclosed earlier in the course of his cross-examination as P.W. 1, without obtaining prior leave of the Court by filing an application to receive the document after notice to the respondent, In the suit, the respondent has prayed for the relief of recovery of money against the petitioner being the value of the construction work done by him and also cost of materials stated to have been unlawfully taken by the petitioner and other incidental reliefs. This claim of the respondent has been denied by the petitioner in her written statement on several grounds, which need not be noticed in detail. On 6-10-1982, at the time of the cross-examination of the respondent as P.W. 1, the petitioner's counsel confront...
Puthutotam Estates (1943) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)57; [1984]148ITR341(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These tax revision cases filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in A.T.A. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1980. 2. The assessee-company owns Puduthotam and Korangumudi estates in Anamalai Hills of Pollachi Taluk in Coimbatore District. The crops grown in the said two estates are coffee, tea and cardamom. But we are concerned in this case mainly with the coffee plantation. Before the Agrl. ITO, the bank. The Agrl. ITO allowed the claim in part subject to the limitation provided in s. 5(k) of the Act. When the matter was taken on appeal to the AAC, he sustained the order of the ITO. On a further appeal to the T ribunal, the Tribunal, held that the interest on the amount borrowed f or maintaining the immature coffee plants on the replanted area cannot be excluded from the purview of s. 5(k), even, though the interest on amounts borrowed on the plantation in general will fall under s. 5(e). In that view, the Tribuna...
Pichai Pillai Konar Vs. Krishnaswami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ160
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 282 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Vridhachalam, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram in A.S. No. 39 of 1977.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:3. The suit property of an extent of 1 acre and 64 cents of agricultural land and other properties originally belonged to one Sepperumal Konar alias Kulla Konar. He died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his wife Alamelu and three daughters, viz., Kuppayee the mother of the Appellant, Vembayee and Parvathiammal (the first defendant in the suit). To discharge the debt payable by Kulla Konar, some of his properties were sold by Alamelu and her three daughters by means of the sale deeds marked as Exs. B. 1 and B. 2. Vembayee, one of the daughters of Kulla Konar, died intestate in the year 1953. The case of the appellant is that Parvathiammal was married in ...
Franco Wheeler by Proprietor, A.R. Dass Vs. State Industries Promotion ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ461
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to forbear from implementing the award of contract to the second respondent for the erection of the Tamil Nadu Pavilion at the India International Trade Fair, 1983, to be held at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, from l4-11-1983 to 27-11-1983. The provocation for the petitioner for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the above relief has arisen under the following circumstances: The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to participate in the India International Trade Fair, 1983, to be held at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, from 14-11-1983 to 27-11-1983. The Fair is to be conducted by the Trade Fair Authority of India, who has organised the same. The Government of Tamil Nadu entrusted the responsibility of erecting the Tamil Nadu Pavilion to the first respondent. By letter dated 22-7-1983, the first respondent called for quotations fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv, Madras Vs. Sundaram Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)316; [1985]151ITR769(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following common questions in relation to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in diminishing the capital base with reference to the deductions allowed under Chapter VI from the total income 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that for the purpose of the computation of capital base, the provisions of rule 4 of the Second Schedule would apply only to items of income which are wholly exempt under Chapter III and that those provisions would not apply to the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A is sustainable in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of the computation of chargeable profits, the deduction under rule 1(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »