Chennai Court December 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.
Kuppu Alias Kuppammal Vs. Kuppuswami Mandiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ224
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The plaintiff Kuppu alias Kuppammal is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit informa pauperis for partition.2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is as follows: The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of one Ramasami Mandiri. The plaintiff's husband Rajagopal Mandiri was the son of Ramasami Mandiri by his first wife. The 1st defendant is his son by his second wife. Ramasami Mandiri had an eider brother by name Beeki Mandiri Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Beeki Mandiri. Beeki Mandiri and Ramasami Mandiri were members of a joint family. Beeki Mandiri was the family manager. The B, C and D schedule properties were all joint family properties acquired with the income from ancestral nucleus and joint labour and joint earnings of the two brothers and were treated and dealt with as joint family properties. The plaintiff was married to Rajagopal about 20 years ago. Ramasami Mandiri died in or about 1945 as an undivided member. On...
Smt. D. Ragupathi Devi Vs. Gift-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD446(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assesse is directed against the assessment to gift-tax with regard to the transfer of certain jewellery by the assessee to her daughter at the time of her marriage.2. The assesse is an individual but a member of the HUF of which her husband M. R. Doraiswamy is the karta. The HUF consisted of the karta, his wife, two sons and two daughters and has substantial properties. The assessee had 250 sovereigns of gold jewellery received as stridhan and 31 cts. of diamonds purchased by her. When the first daughter of the family, Rajeswari, was given in marriage, the family had to arrange for giving some jewellery. The assessee parted with the jewellery in her possession and the karta Doraiswamy also purchased further jewellery of 30 sovereigns of gold and 36 cts. of diamonds valued at Rs. 87,000 and gave them to the daughter on the occasion of the marriage. In the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, she had informed the W...
A. Shanmugham Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR331(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is an individual and the original assessment for the year 1965-66 was completed on October 8, 1965, computing the total income as Rs. 8,990, the source of income being property and business in coconuts. Later, the ITO reopened the assessment under s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') determining the total income at Rs. 75,050. In doing so, he held that the assessee had not disclosed the true cost of construction of the two properties viz., no. 26, Subbaraya Mudali Street and No. 41, Bangaru Naicken Street, Madras-5, which amounted to Rs. 87,300 as against the cost of construction of Rs. 21,235 disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, the difference of Rs. 66,055 in the cost of the construction was added to the income originally determined. 2. The assessee appealed to the AAC both against the reopening of the assessment as well as on the quantum. The AAC confirmed the quantum of cost of construction but did not giv...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Nellai Murasu (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)243; [1985]154ITR355(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court by the Tribunal for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains realised by the assessee on the transfer of lands on July 19, 1967, in favour of M/s. Educational Trust Company Private Ltd. was not assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the only previous year in which the surplus from the transfer of lands which took place on July 19, 1967, will had to be considered would be the financial year April 1, 1967, to March 31, 1968, relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. The assessee, in this case, is a company which publishes a Tamil daily newspaper known as 'Nellai Murasu'. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee filed a return...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veecumsee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR708(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a registered firm of five partners carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of jewellery. Earlier to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the assessee was carrying on business in the exhibition of films in their theatre 'Safire' along with the jewellery business. For the construction of the said theatre, the assessee had made borrowals and has been paying interest thereon. However, the said business of exhibition of films as also the 'Safire' theatre was transferred by the assessee as a going concern to a new partnership concern with effect from July 31,1965. The investment in the 'Safire' theatre made by the assessee-firm to the extent of Rs. 12.39 lakhs was treated by the new firm as a fixed deposit of the assessee firm and interest was paid thereon by the new firm to the assessee-firm at 5% p. a. The interest earned by the assessee on the said deposit from the new firm was assessed under the head 'Other sources' in the assesse...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i, Madras Vs. Surendra Manilal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)310; [1985]154ITR264(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. These tax cases are dealt with together, as at the instance of the Revenue, a common question has been referred for the opinion of this court in all those cases, though the assessees, which are HUFs, and the assessment years, are different. While T.Cs. Nos. 3 to 7 of 1980 relate to a HUF, which is a partner in the firm of M/s. Bapalal and Company, represented by its karta, Sri Suresh B. Mehta, for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73, T.Cs. Nos. 637 of 1978 and 638 of 1978 are concerned with another HUF, which is also a partner in the firm of M/s. Bapalal & Co., represented by its karta, Sri Surendra Manilal Mehta, in respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. For the assessment year 1968-69, though the assessee in T.Cs. Nos. 3 to 7 of 1980 originally declared a certain income, a revised return was subsequently filed showing a reduced income and claiming that the difference of Rs. 12,000 being the salary received by Shri Suresh B. Mehta in his individual capaci...
M.R. Arumuga Nadar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC53(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax revision cases under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the instance of different assessees for the assessment year 1975-76, the common question that arises for consideration and decision is whether 'red ripe or fruit chillies' purchased by the assessees would be 'vegetables' within the meaning of notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1764, Revenue, dated 5th April, 1960, issued under section 17 of the Act as amended subsequently. The petitioners, who are dealers in chillies in Sankarankoil, Tenkasi and Shencottah, purchased 'red ripe or fruit chillies' from agriculturists, dried them and sold them as 'dry chillies' on consignment basis outside the State of Tamil Nadu. Some of them also purchased small quantities from other dealers and sold them in the same manner. The assessing authority was of the view that they were liable to pay tax under section 7A of the Act in respect of their purchases of 'red ripe...
Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR241(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee company is a textile mill and for the previous year and ended March 31, 1976, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, it did not make any provisions for its liability to contribute to an approved gratuity and fund which has been in existence since October 26, 1973. However, in the printed accounts it had appended a note stating that no provision has been made for the gratuity liability for the fifteen months' period ended March 31, 1976, amounting to Rs. 3,77,344. However, the assessee claimed before the ITO that even though no provision has been made in the accounts for the assessment year 1976-77, it was entitled to a deduction of the said amount as it was an accrued liability. The ITO took the view that since s. 36(1)(v) of the I.T. Act allowed only a deduction of a sum paid by way of a contribution towards an approved gratuity fund and since the amount had not been paid in the previous year, the deduction claimed was not to be allowed. The assessee to...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Nathmal Vaid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR186(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In these reference petitions filed under s. 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following common question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer in pursuance of the proceedings initiated by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are invalid for the reason that there was no separate notification under section 8AA of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The controversy in this case centers round the validity of the proceedings started under section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act by the IAC, Range-II, Coimbatore. 3. On January 27, 1977, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, passed an order under s. 125A(1) of the I.T. Act by which the IAC of the Income-tax Range-II, Coimbatore, a...
Abirami Vs. Mathinan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ341
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the second plaintiff in O.S. No. 215 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif of Kumbakonam challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A.S. No. 138 of 1976.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Sivanandi Servai died in the year 1928. The appellant Abirami, the second plaintiff in the suit, is the daughter of Swaminathan who is the daughter's son of Sivanandi Servai through his daughter Alamelu. The second respondent in this second appeal Dandayuthapani, the first plaintiff in the suit, is the daughter's son of Sivanandi Servai through his another daughter Nagammal. Apart from the two daughters Alamelu and Nagammal, Sivanandi Servai had a predeceased son by name Subramanian. Subramanian at the time of his death left his widow Chellammal who is not a party to the suit. Subramanian had a son Adimoolam through his wife Chellammal and he died at the age of three, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »