Chennai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-i Vs. R. Narayanaswami Naicker and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR283(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to state a case, referring the following two questions as arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court, namely : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance of Rs. 25,607 on the plant and machinery used for the purpose of ginning cotton 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the ginning of cotton results in the manufacture of any article or thing mentioned under section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee runs a ginning factory besides having other business. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed relief under s. 32A of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of investment in plant and machinery in the ginning factory. Th...
K. Rama Rao Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2267(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition has to be allowed on a short legal ground advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter arises under the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Certain facts are not in dispute. On 16-9-1977, the officials of the Customs department intercepted the petitioner when he, along with his employee, was about to leave Calcutta and seized ornamental gold of the weight of 1005.800 grams, valued at Rs. 60,240, and cash in currency worth Rs. 14,670. According to the respondents, the seized goods are liable for confiscation under the Act. S. 124 of the Act reads as follows - '124. No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person - (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within s...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hercules Rubber Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC85(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax case filed by the State the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that a turnover of Rs. 1,62,294.30 during the assessment year 1976-77 did not represent inter-State transactions effected by the assessee has been challenged. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this tax revision case may briefly be stated : The assessees manufacture certain goods in Madras. They have their branch office at Vijayawada and the Vijayawada branch booked orders for supply of goods from the local purchasers. Thereafter it required the head office in Madras to despatch the goods to Vijayawada. After the goods were received at the branch office at Vijayawada, the goods were handed over to the purchaser and the price realised. The branch office at Vijayawada had also been taxed on their sales under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority found that these transactions represented inter-State transactions as the goods have been moved out of Madras ...
T. Selvarajan Vs. S. Muralidaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ545
ORDERS. Swamikannu, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed under Section 6-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (XXV of 1955) read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the tenant Selvarajan, the petitioner herein against the Order, dated 20th January 1981 in Petition 'No. 170 439 of 1980 filed under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955, by the landlord. The said order reads as follows:This is a petition under Section 3(4) of Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955 for eviction of the respondent from the petition mentioned lands for keeping in arrears of rent due for faslis 1388 and 1389. When the case came on for hearing on 23rd September, 1980, the respondent admits to pay the arrears of Rs. 900-00. He paid a sum of Rs. 320 on 6 dates from 23rd October, 1980 to 30th December, 1980. When the case was taken up for enquiry on 20th January, 1981, the respondent was absent and set ex parte. The respondent is in arrears of Rs. 580.00 to the petitioner...
Ramuammal and Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare'
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ103
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the award of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after an award enquiry, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,600 per acre with the usual solatium of 15 per cent and interest. The appellants are the claimants and they were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the matter was agitated before the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The lands concerned are as follows:Survey Number 107/2A 49 cents.Survey Number 108 1 acre 48 cents.Survey Number 109/1B 1 acre 32 cents.2. They are situated in Perurchettipalayam Village which is stated to be in the periphery of Coimbatore city and is situated in Coimbatore Taluk itself. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the matter and found no warrant for countenancing the claim for en...
M.K. Kuppuraj Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Mad)314; [1985]153ITR481(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is an individual and he was originally assessed to gift-tax on June 22, 1971. Later, while completing the assessment in the case of one M/s. M. K. Krishna Chetty for the assessment year 1971-72, it was noticed that the assessee had relinquished his right over future profits by 8% by reducing his share of profit from 50% to 42% and conferring a benefit in favour of four minors, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The GTO held that by relinquishing his right to the extent of 8%, he should be taken to have gifted that right to future profits, in favour of the four minors, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He thereafter valued the gift taking five years' profit of the firm from 1966-67 to 1970-71 as the basis and arrived at an average profit of Rs. 6,46,000. After deducting a sum of Rs. 1,08,000 representing management remuneration and another sum of Rs. 12,000 being interest on capital employed, he arrived at ...
Rutty Rajammannar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR363(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case possessed 17 items of immovable properties in respect of which he adopted the valuation of Rs. 3,53,626 which was accepted by the wealth-tax authorities for the assessment year 1960-61. The WTO, for the assessment year 1965-66, found that according to the Inspector's report, the value of all the items of properties would be Rs. 19,33,247. However, after visiting personally every property and taking into consideration several other factors, he valued all the properties at Rs. 16,29,061. 2. The assessee went in appeal to the AAC. He applied different methods of valuation depending upon the location and the extent of the properties. In respect of houses which had considerable vacant land around them, he determined the value of the house with the appurtenant land and of the excess land separately. He also adopted a different basis in respect of properties situate in Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road which he considered very valuable. As regards the ...
Brinda Muthuswami Vs. the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad261; (1983)1MLJ422
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.3875 of 1981, is the appellant herein. She has filed the said writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction in or to quash the notice issued by the Development Officer SIDCO. Industrial Estate, Guindy (second respondent) dt 12.05.1981 under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. The short facts for the purpose of this case are as follows : According to the appellant, she was occupying No. C-52 Industrial Estate, Guindy for the purpose of her business as and from 1.1.1977. It is unnecessary for us to deal with the proceedings of the second respondent for recovery of arrears from the appellant and also the proceedings of the Bank against the appellant and other to recover its dues. The second respondent as per Rs. 3 of the Rules issued a notice under Form A to the appellant calling upon her to show cause on or before ten d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›