Chennai Court February 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Domint Works Gmbh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: [1984]148ITR625(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two references have been made at the instance of the Revenue in relation the same assessment year, but against two separate orders of the Tribunal, one passed in the assessee's appeal and the other passed in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The assessee is a foreign company who had entered into a collaboration agreement with an Indian company. Messrs. Transformer and Switchgear Limited. The Indian company, as the agent of the foreign company who has entered into an agreement with it, has submitted a return on behalf of the foreign company for the year ended March 31, 1968. In the said return, the assessee has admitted receipt of technical fees of Rs. 20,000 but claimed that the sum is not taxable for the reason that it was earned in Indian for technical services rendered outside Indian. However, the ITO, after considering the various services rendered by the foreign company in India, held that having regard to the nature of the services rendered by the foreign co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. M.A. Chidambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR180(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,590 received in excess of the original cost of the shares by way of dividends from the liquidator of M/s. Kanadukathan Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. could not be included in the hands of the assessee as long-term capital gains ?' 2. The assessee was holding 201 shares of Rs. 500 each in Kanadukathan Electric Supply Corporation, which went into liquidation some years back. The assessee was received dividend from the liquidator of the company during the last few years prior to the assessment years 1969-70. In the year of account relevant for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee received by way of the third and fourth dividends a total sum of Rs. 33,165 which, along with the other dividends received previously exceeded the...
Tag this Judgment!D. Mohanlal Parekh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: [1984]148ITR131(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee has applied under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to direct the Tribunal to state case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,975 representing the value of nine gold bars recovered from the assessee's residence was properly includible in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1969-70 and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision of s. 69A was satisfied in regard to the aforesaid addition of Rs. 15,975 ?' 2. There is no dispute in this case as to the factual position. The assessee is a banker and a commission agent for the purchase and sale of gold and gold jewels. On the night of July 31, 1968, the customs officers made a raid in the assessee's residence...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Brick Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)200; [1984]146ITR479(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter reference to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the charging of interest of Rs. 12,818 under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified in law ?' 2. The assessee-company, M/s. Southern Brick Works Ltd., had taken loans from its managing agents, M/s. Southern Enterprises Private Ltd., and towards the said loans the interest had been credited in the assessee's accounts on various dates as under : Date Interest creditedRs.31-3-1968 27,63031-3-1969 26,07531-7-1969 8,07531-3-1972 72,21331-3-1973 26,11231-3-1974 26,11431-5-1974 4,701 3. The ITO found that the assessee had not deducted tax on the amount of interest credited on various dates mentioned above in terms of s. 194A of the Act. Therefore, he charged interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act from the date on which the tax was...
Tag this Judgment!United India Roller Flour Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: [1985]155ITR367(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee has filed this petition under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding that there was no justification for declaring a lesser dividend ?' 2. However, we find that the questions sought to be referred do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The questions sought to be referred are factual and the assessee seeks to question the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The question that was canvassed before the Tribunal was whether the ITO was justified in invoking s. 104 of the Act in the assessee's case. The ITO has initiated proceedings under s. 104 on the ground that the assessee had declared a lesser dividend even though it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen, Employed in Engine Valves Limited Vs. Engine Valves Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ232Mad
Sathiadev, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment in W.P. No. 7315 of 1975, which in turn confirmed the order of the Additional Labour Court, Madras, in I.D. No. 95 of 1974, dated 30th June, 1975, holding that the dismissal of two workmen named Ambalavanan and Muralidharan by the first respondent - Management of Engine Valves Limited, Madras, was correct. First respondent charge-sheeted these two persons under Exhibits M-2 and M-3, dated 19th March, 1974, stating that the worker by name P. Shankar had reported to them under exhibit M-1, dated 18th March, 1974, that at about 5.25 p.m. on 15th March, 1974, they assaulted him for having given over-production, at a place nearly one kilometer away from the respondent - company, and hence clause 16(h) & 16(t) of the Standing Orders of the Company had been violated. They submitted their explanations under Exhibit M-4 and M-5 claiming that at about 5.40 p.m. on that day, they were discussing with the other workmen in the factory i...
Tag this Judgment!Thamirassu Vs. Kamalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ11
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. Section 3(4) (a) and (5) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970 (IX of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), reads as follows:3(4)(a) Every landlord seeking to evict a cultivating tenant falling under Sub-section (2) shall, whether or not there is an order or decree of a Court for the eviction of such cultivating tenant, make an application to the Revenue Court and such application shall bear a court-fee stamp of one rupee.3 (4) (b) (i) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Court shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating, tenant to make their representations, hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass an order either allowing the application or dismissing it and in a case failing under Clause (a) or (b) or of Sub-section (2) in which the tenant had not availed of the provisions contained in Sub-section (3), the Revenue Court may allow the cultivating tenant such time as he considers ju...
Tag this Judgment!Mayandi Chettiar Vs. A.R. Senthilnathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ61
ORDERM.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The above revision is filed assailing the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, made in E.P.No. 50 of 1979 in O.S.No. 21 of 1965, on 29th October, 1980.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent in this revision filed O.S.No. 21 of 1965 before the Sub-Court, Devakottai against the revision petitioner and others for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,000 odd. An ex parte decree was passed on 30th April, 1966 against the petitioner and those who figured as defendants in the suit. I.A.No. 315 of 1966 in O.S.No. 21 of 1965 was filed by the petitioner and others to set aside the ex parte decree which petition was dismissed on 3rd October, 1966. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, civil miscellaneous appeal was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal on condition that the defendants in the suit should pay a sum of Rs. 200 by way of costs to the decree-holder within six weeks from that date. That order wa...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Madan Mohan Rao Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ491
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed by Dr. Madan Mohan Rao against the judgment of V. Ramaswami, J. dismissing W.P. No. 2613 of 1977. The appellant was, the Principal of Sir Theagaraya College, Madras. On 26th May, 1975 as many as twelve charges were framed against him and he was called upon to submit his explanation thereto. The appellant filed, his explanation on 1st July, 1975. Subsequently, there were certain proceedings between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 with which we are not very much concerned in this writ appeal. On 1st May, 1976, the appellant was served with notice of the enquiry to be held on 3rd May, 1976. Since the appellant was absent the enquiry was adjourned to 7th May, 1976. Even then the appellant was absent. Thereafter on 7th May, 1976, the College Committee found that the charges against the appellant were proved, and dismissed the appellant from service. Against the dismissal order the appellant preferred an appeal to the Government on ...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsuddIn and ors. Vs. TuticorIn Jamia Masjid, TuticorIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad276; (1984)1MLJ77
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O. S. 4 of 1982, on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin, came forward with I. A. 26 of 1982, for appointment of a Commissioner for taking an inventory of the account books of respondent I wakf. The suit itself is one purporting to have been laid under Section 92, Civil P. C., claiming the Primary relief of framing a scheme. The respondents opposed the said application on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable for want of consent of the Wakf Board and therefore the application deserves to be dismissed. The teamed Subordinate Judge upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the application for appointment of a Commissioner. It is this order that is assailed in this revision.2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Court below erred in considering the maintainability of the suit when all that was before the Court below was an application for appointment of a Commissioner. I find, such a contention is h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »