Chennai Court November 1983 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Jaya Pharmacy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC164(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. Since all the matters are interconnected, they are dealt with together. One Jaya Pharmacy, Dindigul, the assessee in this case are dealers in arishtams. They have been collecting sales tax on their sales of arishtams at 30 per cent from 4th March, 1974, treating the arishtams sold by them as coming under item 135 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The sales tax collections made at 30 per cent were paid over to the State. In the assessment made against the assessee by the assessing authority, 30 per cent tax collected by the assessee was taken to be the rate of tax and the assessment was completed on that basis. However, from 30th September, 1977, the assessee collected tax at 8 per cent on the sale of arishtam treating the arishtam sold by them as drugs, which is taxable at 8 per cent under the provisions of the Act. Later, in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal in T.A. No. 382 of 1978, held that the articles sold as arishtam by the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Commr. and Secy., Revenue Dept. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ273
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common order of Padmanabhan, J., in W.P. Nos. 1903 and 1904 of 1980. The appellants herein are the respondents in the Writ Petitions. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petitions. The petitioner approached this Court by way of two writ petitions under the following circum stances. Late Dr. P. Venkataramana Rao died on 5-3-1973 leaving a will dated 4-6-1967. Under the terms of the will various legacies were left and the legatees, amongst others, were his son Dr. P.V. Rajamannar, his wife Smt. Ammani Ammal and his four granddaughters. One of the items of the properties covered by the will is a land of an extent of 78 cents in S. Nos. 638/1B2 and 638/1C1 in Ambattur Village, hereinafter referred to in this judgment as 'the lands'. The lands came within the Madras Urban agglomeration within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978(Act...
Tag this Judgment!Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)109; [1984]146ITR1(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a company by name Carborandum Universal Ltd. and it prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by this court quashing the orders of the 2nd respondent dated September 22, 1978, confirming the order of the 1st respondent dated March 30, 1978, and to direct respondents 1 and 2 herein accord approval to the petitioner as required in their application dated October 27, 1975, under r. 2(1) of Part C of the 4th Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The circumstances under which the petitioner has approached this court with this writ petition may briefly be noted. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated in the year 1954 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with a paid up capital of Rs. 70 lakhs and it is engaged in the manufacturer of bonded abrasives, coated abrasives, aluminium-oxide grains and refractories all of them being listed in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the I.T. Act, 1961. On 26th August, 1970, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Tube Investments of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR645(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks the issue of a certiorarified mandamus from this court to quash the order of the first respondent dated June 24, 1978, and to direct the respondents to quantify the exempted portions of the dividend in accordance with r. 20 of the I.T. Rules at 100%. 2. The circumstances under which them writ petition came to be filed may be noted in brief. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of cycles, tubes and other steel products. In respect of the year ended December 31, 1977, the petitioner declared a dividend of Rs. 37,50,000 at the annual general meeting held on June 29, 1978. The petitioner started a new industrial undertaking in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, called the 'Third Tube Mill' whose profits were eligible for deduction under s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, effective from the assessment year 1975-76. The ITO quantified the exemp...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., Madras Vs. Government of India, New Delhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT93(Mad)
ORDER1. The appellant is a public limited company carrying on business in manufacturing electrical equipments for automobile industry. In the course of the business, it imported aluminium rods which were held by the Customs authorities to be liable to duties of customs under Item 70(1) contained in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Act. The Customs authorities also levied additional duty, generally known as countervailing duty, which is equivalent to the excise duty leviable on aluminium rods under Item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act. Stating that no countervailing duty was payable, the appellant sought a refund of the same and this was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. However, on appeal the Appellate Collector of Customs allowed the appeal and directed the refund of the countervailing duty levied on these goods. The Government of India is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. Sri Venkateswara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)37; [1985]153ITR687(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of handloom cloth in India and abroad. For the assessment year 1964-65 (for the previous year ending April 12, 1964), it filed a return on Juanuary 16, 1965, disclosng an income of Rs. 58,574. Not being satisfied with the correctness of the return, certain investigations were started by the Department. On March 9, 1966, the assessee filed a petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax under s. 271(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), admitting that the entries in its account books did not show the real state of affairs, but reiterating that the income during the period relevant for the assessment year 1964-65 was Rs. 58,600. By his order dated March 28, 1969, the ITO found that the assessee had trafficked in the liences granted to it for importing art-silk yarn at a premium but had made entries in its books of account as art-silk yarn was imported and in the manufature of...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jeevanandam Vs. Correspondent, American Advent Mission School, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ118Mad
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No 619 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this appeal. 2. The suit is for a declaration that the order of dismissal passed against the plaintiff from the services of the declaration on 5th June, 1967 is void and of no effect and for consequential direction that the plaintiff should be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages. 3. As I will be setting out later in detain the grounds of attack as regards the dismissal as claimed to be wrongful by the plaintiff, it is enough to state that the plaintiff's dismissal is challenged on the ground that there has been violation of principles of natural justice because no enquiry at all was held. The other ground urged by the plaintiff is that the dismissal is mala fide on the facts pleaded by him. The suit as originally laid was for mere declaration that the dismissal is void. Subsequently, The plaint was amended as per order in I.A. No. 6640 of 1974 dated 29th March, 1974. By virtue of the...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Sambana Rao, a Regd. Partnership Firm by Its Partner T.S. Sivaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ446
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. These three writ petitions challenge one and the same acquisition and therefore, they can be dealt with under a common order. The facts are as under: On 3-5-1979 the Government of Pondicherry received a requisition from the Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Corporation) requesting certain lands to be acquired for setting up a Trade Centre to exhibit and display quality products of small-scale industries. A preliminary investigation was made by the Deputy Collector (Revenue) on 13-6-1979. He submitted a report to the Government on 2-3-1979. On 12-7-1979, the Government requested the Collector to send his report. Thereupon, on 26-7-1979, the Deputy Collector (Revenue) called for certain particulars from the Industrial Corporation. The Industrial Corporation furnished the particulars on 6-9-1979. On 17-10-1979, the Deputy Collector submitted his report to the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. A. R. Balakrishnan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD637(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant Member -In this appeal by the revenue the short point for consideration is whether the remuneration received by the assessees wife Smt. Savitha Balakrishnan from Girinath Agencies (P.) Ltd, in which she is also a director holding 50 per cent share of the limited company is to be clubbed or not. During the previous year ending on 31-3-1979 which is the first year of the business, Smt. Savitha Balakrishnan was paid remuneration of Rs. 12,000 per annum, as director of the company which was clubbed by the ITO under section 64(1) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). According to the ITO, the remuneration was paid not for professional or technical qualifications or knowledge and, therefore, the proviso to section 64(1) (ii) was not applicable. The clubbing was done in the hands of the assessee as he had higher income than his spouse. On appeal, the AAC was of the view that as proprietrix, she possessed technical knowledge and experi...
Tag this Judgment!Sivachidamba Ram Vs. Annamalai Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad350; (1984)1MLJ419
1. The second defendant in 0. S. 666 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property was described in. the schedule as follows : 'Pondicherry - Orleanpet Commune, Sarampacom, Cadastre Nos. 65, 66, 76, 102, 104.62.66-B and coconut thope in No. 86 total extent is 3 Kani 37 Kulies.' The plaintiff, in support of the above prayer, put forth the following allegations : He is a cultivating tenant in respect of. the suit property. The suit property comprises of a coconut tope in Cadestre No. 86 and the lease specifically covers the coconut tope also. The first defendant claims to have leased out the coconut tope in Cadastre No. 86 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »