Chennai Court February 1983 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sree Alavoimani Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC293(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees in these cases are manufacturers and dealers in bricks. From 1st April, 1965, however, they did not register themselves as dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessing authority taking note of an advertisement in Dhinathanthi paper dated 4th March, 1968, about the supply of bricks by the assessees to the Students Tutorial College and High School at Madurai, called upon the assessees to produce the accounts; but the accounts were not produced by the assessees as called upon. Thereafter, the assessing authority passed final assessment order of best judgment assessment by fixing the taxable turnover of Rs. 81,005 with reference to the coal purchases made during the year 1968-69 and also passed final orders to best judgment on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,18,388 with reference to the coal purchases for the year 1969-70. The assessing officer also levied penalty of Rs. 3,645 for the year 1968-69 and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. K.T.S. Nagamanickam Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Mad)288; [1984]148ITR115(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm consisting of the karta of the Hindu undivided family as one of the partners and four other coparceners of the said Hindu undivided family as other partners and they having brought in their separate property was a validly constituted firm and was entitled to registration ?' 2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made may briefly be stated. The HUF of which Sri K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar is the karta was carrying on two business, viz., sale of petroleum products of the Indian Oil Corporation and rice business. The said family consisted, inter alia, of the karta, his wife and ten sons of whom seven were major during the relevant period. On April 1, 1973, the business in the sale of petroleum products was converted into a partnership firm. This was...
Tag this Judgment!India Manufacturers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: [1985]155ITR770(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annual payment of a sum of Rs. 30,000 per year was an allowable deduction for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the purchase and sale of Halda typewriters, spare parts, Facit calculators, accounting machines, etc., produced by the Rayala Corporation Private Limited. For the assessment years 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the assessee filed returns claiming deduction in respect of each year of a sum of Rs. 30,000 said to be agency consideration paid to one Mrs. Sarada on the ground that it is an expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business. That claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority on two grounds. One is that the transaction by which the assessee acquire...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kr. C.N.K.R. Adhappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. R.M. Meenakshi Achi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad277; (1983)IIMLJ561
ORDER1. The above revision is filed assailing the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, in I. A. 260 of 1981 in A. S. No. 179 of 1978, dated 26-7-1982. It appears from the facts of the case and also as argued, by the respective counsel that the Petitioners filed O. S. 105 of 1975 before the District Munsif, Sivaganga, against the respondents herein for a declaration of title to the suit property and for an injunction. Defendants 4 to 7 in the suit submitted to a decree. The suit went ort and ultimately came to be dismissed on 25-7-1978. 1 am repeating this' date because the first respondent Meenakshi Achi purchased the suit property measuring 3.12 acres in entirely from defendants I and 2 on 20-7-1978, immediately after the dismissal of the suit. In the meanwhile, the petitioners who lost 0. S. 105 of 1975 preferred A. S. No. 179 of 1978 before the Sub Court, Sivaganga. When the first respondent herein who is a purchaser of the suit. property came to know that an appeal has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Star Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC172(Mad)
Shanmukham, J.1. The question involved in both the tax cases is the same relating to the same assessee in respect of two assessment years, viz., 1970-71 and 1973-74 respectively, hence, a common judgment. 2. T.C. No. 1397 of 1977 : This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue which exercising suo motu power under section 34, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed exemption in respect of turnover for Rs. 1,18,865 holding that the same represented sales in the course of import and restored the order of the assessing officer. The appeal is thus directed against the inclusion of Rs. 1,18,865 as taxable turnover on rejection of the assessee's claim for exemption on the ground that they are sales in the course of import. 3. The Board of Revenue reached its conclusion on the following facts as culled out from its order : (1) In all the five cases in respect of which exemption is claimed, the goods were imported from Germany by the assessee and t...
Tag this Judgment!New Bharath Steel House Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC127(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner in this revision reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 41,802.22 for the year 1972-73. The assessing officer determined the turnover at Rs. 47,853.32 under section 7 and Rs. 41,944.80 under section 5 by his order dated 31st August, 1973. No appeal was preferred against the said order. However, the assessing officer passed a revised order, including certain turnover as being attributable to outside State purchases and determining the turnover for the purpose of section 7 at Rs. 89,798.12. There was no appeal against that order also. On 10th September, 1976, the assessment was further revised and tax was levied under section 5 on Rs. 41,944.80. The petitioner filed a rectification proceeding under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, to the assessing officer which was rejected. He filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, against the refusal of the assessing officer to pass orders under section 55 which was also dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Mani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ277
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the G.O. Ms. No. 402, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 9th March, 1979, on the ground that the Government had no jurisdiction to pass the said Government Order administratively so as to modify the regulations which it has framed under Section 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939.2. The petitioner herein was working as a Health Assistant from 20th July, 1970, in Alandur Municipality. His services have been regularised after the satisfactory completion of probation and he was awaiting promotion as Sanitary Inspector. The State Government has framed certain regulations called Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service Regulations, 1972 with effect from 14th January, 1970, in exercise of their power, under Section 8(2) of the Act. As per the said regulations, the services in the Public Health Department of the Municipalities had been divided into five clauses...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaz Agencies Vs. M.K. Mohideen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ358Mad; (1983)IIMLJ108
1. The management of Mumtaz Agencies, Mettupalayam, is the petitioner in this writ petition. The first respondent claims himself to be a workman within the meaning of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the first respondent his services were orally terminated. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the oral order of termination was set aside. Armed with this order, the first respondent approached the second respondent under S. 33C(2) of the Act claiming arrears of wages. The petitioner contested the said application putting forth a substantial contention among other contentions, that the first respondent did not fall within the category of a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act. Earlier, petitioner suffered an ex parte order, but, however, that got set aside pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 398 of 1977, and the matter got remitted to the file o...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles (Arn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)344; [1984]145ITR15(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One B. Rajagopala Naidu, the founder director of Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Textiles (Arni) (p.) Ltd., Madras, a controlled company within the meaning of s. 17 of the E. D. Act, died on March 28, 1973. He had maintained a current as well as deposit account with the company and was receiving interest on the deposits made by him with the company. During the three years ended March 31, 1972, the deceased had received interest amounting to Rs. 55,177 on his deposits. Holding that the provisions of s. 17 applied to the facts of this case, the Asst. Controller included the slice of the assets of the controlled company computed under s. 17 in the value of the estate passing on death. A sum of Rs. 1,49,050 was thus included in the principal value of the estate as representing the deceased's slice of the assets of the controlled company. 2. On appeal, the Appellate Controller held that the deceased had not received any benefit from the company within the meaning of r. 5 of the Contr...
Tag this Judgment!Devendran and Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC229(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal upholding the penalty of Rs. 7,030 imposed on the assessee under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, section 12(5) has no application to the facts of this case, as the assessing authority in this case has not accepted the turnover returned by the assessee, which is a necessary ingredient for the application of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 12. 2. What happened in this case was this. The assessee submitted a return showing a taxable turnover of Rs. 95,741.50. The assessing authority, however, after a check of his accounts, determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,83,250. The assessing authority, after a check of the books of account of the assessee, found that the assessee had failed to disclose a huge turnover in the A-2 returns, though it found its place in the accounts, with a view to postpone payment of tax legitimately due to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »