Chennai Court March 1983 Judgments
Mrs. Gori Devi Vs. Shama Rao (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ223
K. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the landlady under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the judgment, dated 30th November, 1981,. of the learned Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) in H.R.A. No. 1586 of 1980 on his file, which was preferred by the tenants against the order of the learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), in H.R.C. No. 298 of 1980, which was filed for eviction of the tenants by the landlady-revision petitioner under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The case of the revision petitioner was as under She is the owner of the entire premises bearing Door No. 12, Krishnappa Maistry Street, Park Town, Madras.: It is a residential building, comprised of two shops in the front portion of the groundfloor, and the rest, residential portions. The first respondent to the evicti...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Venkateswara Enterprises.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD210(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. Venkatappa, Judicial Member - The assessee-firm was constituted by a partnership deed dated 21-12-1976 with two partners, viz., Shri T. Dalegowda and B. Mahadevaiah. Shri Dalegowda died on 9-3-1978. The accounting year of the firm was 31-3-1978. For the period from 9-3-1978 to 31-3-1978 there was no fresh deed. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 11 seeking registration. The ITO refused to grant registration on the ground that the partnership was not operative throughout the year and the fresh deed was executed only after the close of the accounting year. He treated the firm as unregistered firm. On appeal, the AAC directed the ITO to register the firm governed by the deed dated 21-12-1976. He followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Addl. CIT. v. Thyagasundara Mudaliar : [1981]127ITR520(Mad) . Against the same, the revenue has preferred this appeal.2. The learned departmental representative strongly urged that the death of Shri Dalegowda on 9-3-1978...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.V. Ravanappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1983
Reported in: [1985]156ITR185(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In the above petitions filed under section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following three questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains arising on the sale of the properties should be computed by taking the sale price at an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale consideration in respect of the sale of properties effected during the relevant accounting years amounted to Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 without considering the relevant fact that the properties had been in adverse possession at the time of the sale in the relevant accounting years and to resume such properties, the consideration received earlier between 1950 to 1955 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Rockweld Electrodes (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1983
Reported in: [1986]158ITR819(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred to this court as arising out of the order of the Tribunal in R. A. No. 279 of 1976-77 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be computed for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 after deducting the liabilities 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 20,313 under section 35A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. The Revenue also has sought and obtained a reference on the following question as arising out of the same order of the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80J at six per cent. of the capital employed without it being limited on a proportionate time basis for the assessment year 1968-69 3. So far as the question referred at the...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Desika Gnanasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal, Dharmapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR390(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the accountable person for its opinion under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was not under an obligation to maintain his mother after he became a sanyasi and, consequently, the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his mother on January 21, 1970, was not support by consideration in money or money's worth and hence operated as a gift ?' 2. The circumstances under which the above reference came to be made may briefly be stated : His Holiness Sir-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gananasambanda Paramacharya Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who as the head of Dharmapuram Adhinam, one of the famous mutts in South India, which has been established for the propagation of Saiva Sidhanth Philosophy and the literature relating thereto, was a non-dwija (Sudra) before the became a sanyas...
Tag this Judgment!Spencer and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC188; 1983(14)ELT2098(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ451
ORDER1. Messrs Spencer and Co. Ltd., Madras have filed this writ petition praying to call for the records of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV division, pertaining to C. No. V/1.D/17/1/78 dated 29-8-1978 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. By the impugned order, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV division, has treated Messrs Spencer and Co. Ltd., as 'bottlers' for Messrs Modern Bakeries India Ltd., and the soft drink '77' bottled by Messrs Spencer and Co. Ltd., as production by and on behalf of Messrs Modern Bakeries India Ltd. On this finding, the Assistant Collector held that the exemption contemplated in notification No. 211/77, dated 4th July, 1977 is not applicable to Messrs Spencer and Co. Ltd. 3. Notification No. 211/77-Central Excise, dated 4-7-1977 which grants exemption from excise duty, to certain commodity, reads as follows :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-ru...
Tag this Judgment!Moulvi Mohammed and ors. Vs. S. Mohaboob Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad7; (1983)IIMLJ357
ORDER1. This revision was earlier disposed of by me on 21-12-1982. At that time, the respondent was not represented. Subsequently, pursuant to order in C. M. P, No. 2461 of 1983, the order dated 21-12-1982 was, set aside because, the respondent offered convincing explanation for non-appearance at the time when the revision was heard earlier and I felt that it is better that the matter is disposed of after hearing all the parties. The petitioners herein and one Zaina Bi (since deceased) were granted ryotwari patta under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 by the Assitant Settlement Officer, Chingleput, by order-dated 28-4-1979. Zaina Bi preferred, an appeal C. M. A. 57 of 1979 before the Minor Inams tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge 11) Chingleput and while the said appeal wits pending, she died on 21-7-1980. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the said appeal. The respondent herein is the daughter of one Chotima Bi, a sister of Zaina Bi and Chotima Bi predeceased Zaina Bi. As such...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ponnusamv and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad156; (1983)IIMLJ459
Mohan, J. 1. These writ petitions challenge the validity of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act I I of 1971). (Throughout the course' of our Judgment. it will be referred to as the Act).2. Since an identical point is in issue in all these writ petitions. It is enough if we refer to the facts in W. P. No. 140 of 1979 alone. The Petitioner purchased a portion of the, 'rodent in R. S. No. 3969/11. TondiarDet. Madras from one A. Sundararaian. for a sum of R3. 6.400 for the of constructing therein a residential house for his living. After raising a loan from his provident fund. The Petitioner made necessary arrangements for the construction of the house. Owing to some technical difficulties. The construction could not be taken our immediately. There is an oven solace in R. S. No. 3968/2 which is described as Keri Thottarn.3. The Tamil Nadu glum Clearance Board. Madras. wanted to acquire this proverty. known as Keerai Thottam. for the nurvose of th...
Tag this Judgment!Vedagiri Vs. Pattamal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad307
1. The appeal before the District Judge of Chengalpattu, A. S. No. 159 of 1980, has been preferred by defendant 1 against the judgment and decree in O. S. 183 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu. The respondents in the said appeal are plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' one-fifth share and there was a controversy over the 'C' schedule properties, which defendant 5 claimed as his self acquisition. The first court countenanced the case of defendant 5 and the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the 'C' schedule properties was dismissed. The first court passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs' one fifth share in the 'A' schedule properties other than item No. 31; B schedule properties and C1 schedule properties. The first defendant has filed the appeal A. S. No. 159 of 1980. The plaintiffs' respondents 1 to 6 in the appeal, preferred cross-objections and ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Viswanatha thevar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: [1986]157ITR819(Mad)
1. The question sought to be raised before this court is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant-Hindu undivided family has to be assessed at a higher rate as a specified Hindu undivided family under the Wealth-tax Act. 2. The Tribunal has held that the applicant-Hindu undivided family has to be assessed at a higher rate as it comes under sub-paragraph (1A) of para. A of part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act and since the wife's wealth has been found to exceed Rs. 1 lakh. The contention urged on behalf of the assessee is that though the wife is loosely called a member of a Hindu undivided family, she is not a coparcener and, therefore, her wealth cannot be taken into the purpose of determining whether the applicant Hindu undivided family could be taken to fall under sub-paragraph (1A) of para. A part I of the Schedule. The Schedule. The submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »