Chennai Court February 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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Rallis India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC218(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in this case is whether the State can file a petition for enhancement before the Tribunal in respect of a turnover which was not in dispute before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This question came up for consideration before this Court and on more than one occasion this Court has held that the Tribunal can entertain the enhancement petition eve in respect of a turnover which was not questioned by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The relevant decisions of this Court are in (T.C. No. 1304 of 1977 rendered on 26th August, 1982) State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyarelal Malhotra [1984] 57 STC 215 and (T.C. No. 1284 of 1977 rendered on 15th April, 1982) State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture Co. (P.) Ltd. [1984] 57 STC 217 and the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Panayappan Leather Industries [1981] 47 STC 88. 2. In view of the said decision upholding the right of the Revenue to file a petiti...
A.S.P. Aiyar and anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad330; [1984]56CompCas352(Mad)
ORDERIn these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the Miscellaneous Non Banking Companies(Reserve Bank) Directions 1973, (for short the Reserve Bank Directions 1973). The petitioners are partners of the Palghat Credit Corporation, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. They are also share holders and directors of Palghat Chit Funds (P.) Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (referred to as the Company). The partnership firm receives deposits from the members of the public and lends money to the members of the public. During financial crisis of the Company the partnership firm helps it by paying money to it to discharge its obligations directly or undertakes and discharges obligations of the company directly and get a credit in the books of the company and in other ways. As on 31-12-1976 the Company owed to the partnership firm a sum of Rupees 24,43,601/87 which was reduced to Rupees 6,40,000/- as on 31-3-1979....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. M. Uttama Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1983
Reported in: [1984]148ITR580(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in this group of tax cases is a tax lawyer. He was taken as a partner in a law firm in the year 1967. He was expelled from it on January 23, 1970. He, thereafter, continued his law practice on his own. But he took up the matter of his expulsion with his erstwhile partnership. On February 2, 1970, the assessee and his former partners settled their outstanding differences and entered into what they called 'Heads of Agreement'. Under the terms of this settlement, it was, inter alia, agreed that all work with the assessee as on January 23, 1970, as regards company law and taxation may be taken by him and the continuing partners shall not be entitled to any fee in respect of such work. The implication was that the assessee should alone be entitled to the entire fees for all his work in these case up to January 23, 1970. There was, however, one particular company law work in respect of Binny's amalgamations. The assessee was entitled to fees as counsel fo...
C.V. George and Company Vs. Marshall Sons (Manufacturing) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ525
P. Venugopal, J.1. The defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal. The defendant is a contractor at Cochin and the plaintiff is a dealer in Hot Mix plant and Mini Crushers. On 6th May, 1971, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff asking for quotation for supply of one hot mix plant. The plaintiff sent a reply on 1lth May, 197l, with all the necessary details. Then the defendant again on 21st June, 1971, asked for a revised quotation from the plaintiff. The revised quotation was sent by the plaintiff on 29th July, 1971. The plaintiff's case is that it agreed to deliver the hot mix plant in three to four months' time from the date of receipt of the order but subject to conditions beyond its control the hot mix plant could not be supplied earlier than January, 1972. The defendant's case is that as per the agreement between them, the hot mix plant should have been supplied by the middle of September, 1971 and time was essence of the contract and the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. K. Balakrishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)337; [1983]143ITR651(Mad)
Shanmukham, J. 1. The Revenue having lost before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, the following questions were referred to this court at its instance : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 168 would not apply to the facts of the case and that the entire income from all the properties bequeathed under the will cannot be taxed in the hands of the executors as a single unit (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the shares of the beneficiaries are know and determinate and that, therefore, the provisions of section 164 would not apply (iii Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from hotel business and income from property at Sunkurama Chetty Street alone should be taxed in the hands of the assessee as income received ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S.V.M. Mohamed JalaluddIn (Accountable P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR470(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This following question of law has been referred to this court under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount includible in the estate of the deceased under the provisions of section 17(2) of the Estate Duty Act was Rs. 12,415 only in terms of rule 11(9) of the Estate Duty (Controller Companies) Rules, 1953 ?' 2. One S. V. M. Mohammed Jamaluddin who died on August 9, 1963, owned 10,000 shares of Rs. 10 each in M/s. S. V. M. Mohammed Jamaluddin and Brothers (Ceylon) Limited. The deceased had also gifted 2,000 shares to his son within the statutory period of two years before his death. Therefore, the value of 12,000 shares had to be considered for purposes of estate duty. 3. The Assistant Controller proceeding on the basis that s. 17 of the Act is applicable, determin...
T. Manickavasagam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)148; [1983]143ITR269(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a partner in a firm called M/s. 'Tamil Nadu', a newspaper published from Madurai. In the assessment year 1969-70, the said firm had made certain capital gains on sales of certain assets. It had, however, incurred loss under the head 'Business' which loss was more than the capital gains. Therefore, the capital gains was set off against the business loss. Even after the setting-off, there was a loss of Rs. 1,33,580 which was distributed between the five partners of the firm and the amount of loss which was apportioned to the assessee was Rs. 35,622. 2. In the individual assessment of the assessee, the partner claimed the benefit of s. 80T of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessing authority granted the relief under s. 80T of the Act in the original assessment of the assessee. Later, the ITO felt that he had committed a mistake in granting the relief under s. 80T of the Act and, therefore, he issued a notice und...
Santhan Kamalanathan Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad355
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Super-intendent in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board ( for short the Housing Board). She originally joined the service of the Housing Board as a junior assistant. She has filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the amendment made by the Housing Board in its Resolution No.102 dt. 31-3-1981 and approved by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 921 Housing and Urban Development dt. 22-10-1981 null and void.2. The Housing Board was constituted under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act. 1961 ( for short the Act). In exercise of the powers conferred under the Act of the Housing Board framed service regulations. Appendix A II Item (8) provides that a candidate for appointment as assistant (1) must be a graduate of a recognised university and (2) must have passed the Government Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers, Part I. On 17-6-1975 the State Government issued G.O. Ms. 648 Housing Department confirming and approving an amendment to...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. S. Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR732(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Having six daughters in a Hindu family is no, especially when they are born in quick succession. The assessee, in this case, is the karta of a HUF. He sired six daughters in a row, Radha, Seetha, Geetha, Latha, Sudha and Preetha. During a particular span of time with which we are concerned in this reference, all these girls were minors and this gives an indication of the intervals of their arrivals. The assessee had a plurality of business interests. He was, inter alia, a partner in two firms carrying on film distribution business. He had also a plurality of income-tax assessments, one assessment in his own name as an individual and another assessment in the name of his HUF. In this state of affairs, he got all his six minor daughters admitted to the benefits of partnership, one after the other in the two firms in which he was a partner. We would not know that prompted this decision, whether it was a pure business decision, or part of a family arrangement, or a ...
B. Gopalakrishnan Vs. the Management of Indian Potash Ltd. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ218
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 17th July, 1980 of Mohan, J., in Writ Petition No. 5916 of 1979. The appellant herein was employed as a clerk by the respondent-Management with effect from 1st August, 1973. He successfully completed the prescribed period of probation of six months and he was confirmed in that post with effect from 1st January, 1974. Some of the employees' of the respondent-Management were members of the All India Indian Potash Employees Union. They had made several demands such as revision of scales of pay, existing daily batta, supply of uniforms, comprehensive insurance, etc., on the Management which the Management was not in a position to comply with. Eventually, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. Ms. No. 702, Labour and Employment, dated 10th March, 1978 had referred the said dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and the same...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »