Chennai Court April 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 Vs. Lucas Tvs Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR239(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The ITO excluded a sum of Rs. 7.22 lakhs representing the amount said to be outstanding to Messrs. Joseph Lucas (Industries) Limited, England, on plant account in the computation of capital for the purpose of relief under. 80J for the assessment year 1968-69. 2. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,52,466 as representing the gratuity liability. The ITO allowed deduction only to the extent of Rs. 4,65,944 and disallowed the balance of the claim on the ground that the payment of the said sum had not arisen during the assessment year in question. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the ITO on those two claims, the assessee took the matters in appeal to the AAC, but without success. Thereafter, the assessee took the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the claim of the assessee in respect of both the matters. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has sought for and obtained a re...
M. Ramalingam Vs. Bhagwandas Mahesh Kumar Maheswari, Hindu Undivided F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ285
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The second defendant in C.S. No. 629 of 1979 on the file of the Original Side of this Court is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff is the suit. The suit was laid by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale. There are as many as eight defendants in the suit. The suit came to be laid on 27th November, 1979. Along with the suit, Application No. 4694 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff for an order of injunction restraining alienations by the defendants, pending the suit. Interim injunction was granted on 6th December, 1979, in that application. The order of interim injunction was admittedly served on the second defendant on 12th January, 1980, along with the relevant papers. On 5th March, 1980, suit summons was affixed at the outer door of the premises in question and that is, old No. 23, new No. 9, Venkatesa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, because, as per the evidence of the bailiff examined in this case as R.W....
Raja Sir M.A. Mutthiah Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Mad)76; [1984]148ITR532(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the income from the properties transferred to the trust under an agreement of gift, dated February 9, 1969, in the hands of the applicant is justified in law ?' 2. On March 14, 1957, the assessee along with his wife, two sons and their wives founded a trust known as the 'Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust' by means of a trust deed. Under the said deed of trust, the assessee, his two sons and two other persons were constituted trustees. Clause 10 of the trust deed provided that the trustees may receive from the parties thereto or from any other person any further sums of money or shares or assess of any description that may be given by them or any one of them for the purposes and objects of the said trust on such terms and cond...
Transworld Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC177
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in both the writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is carrying on garment export business at Madras. They have been granted necessary export quota on the strength of their past export performance. The nature of their export business involves considerable preparatory work. The requisite quality cloth has to be purchased in bulk in advance and the cloth has to be cut into pieces as per the designs required by the foreign purchaser and stitched as export garment. The foreign contract for purchase has to be concluded sufficiently early so that there could be no delay in shipping for export. 3. The Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council which has been entrusted by the Union Government, Ministry of Commerce for giving export assistance for cotton textiles. The rate of such assistance was decided by the said Export Promotion Council for the period 1.4.1978 to 313.1979. The te...
The Indian Steel Rolling Mills Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC278(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the assessee. As against the total and taxable turnover returned by the assessee, the assessing officer of the Commercial Tax Department determined the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 2,78,88,190.87 and Rs. 2,47,14,416.87 respectively in the assessment proceedings dated 30th March, 1972, for the year 1970-71. The assessees are M/s. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Limited, dealers in iron and steel. The assessing officer had intially granted exemption on export amounting to Rs. 8,89,938.80. A check of the records filed in support of the claim for exemption made by the assessee revealed that M/s. Rallis India Limited, Madras, had entered into a contract with M/s. Nationale De Siderurgie, Algeria (hereinafter referred to as the 'foreign buyer'), in Algeria, and that in order to fulfil the export contract they had requested the assessee to export the iron and steel goods to the importer in Algeria. The invoices were raised by the assessee on M...
Sunda thevar and ors. Vs. the Collector of Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ451
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. The second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in O.S. No. 719 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai and A.S. No, 200 of 1977 on the file of the District Judge of Madurai.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: Mela Urappannur Periakulam Kanmoi is a Government Irrigation source, which irrigates 800 acres of land by the water collected in it. Josier Alankulam Kanmoi is another Government irrigation source, northwest of Mela Urapanur Periakulam Kanmoi. There are two vents marked as B and B-l in the plaint plan in the Josier Alangulam Kanmoi from which a channel leads to Mela Urappannur tank. The channel is about a mile long. Josier Alangulam Kanmoi is fed by surplus water from Nochikulam tank, which is to the north of Josier Alangulam Kanmoi. North of Nochikulam is Ponnamakulam Kanmoi, which is another Government Irrigation source. Water from Ponnamakulam Kanmoi flows throug...
Mayfield Estate Nallakottah Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC432
S Mohan, J.1. An important question arises for consideration in this case, whether any person other than a dependent can file a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act for requiring adjudication as to the claim in relation to the deceased workman. Admittedy in this case, the respondent's wife died in the course of employment. Compensation came to be fixed at Rs. 19,200/-. It is this order which is appealled against. In so far as Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act defines 'dependant' who alone can invoke the jurisdiction and the same has not been gone into by the Court below, the order cannot be supported. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Momjee v. Maung Mia Sein 186 IND.CAS. 93 and also B.M. Habeebulla Maricar v. Periaswami 1977 A.C.J. 517. The further contention is that this is not a case of suo motu enquiry in which event Section 10-A of the Act will apply. Therefore, where the party wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax-i, Madras Vs. M.V. Moosa and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR360(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. On the directions of this court in TCPs. Nos. 272 to 274 of 1975, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has referred the following questions of law as the Reference Applications Nos. 693 to 695 of 1973-74 made by the Department were dismissed by the Tribunal. Question in respect of the assessee's appeal : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in assessing the assessee in the status of 'association of persons' (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding is based on proper evaluation of the materials before it (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the assessee cannot be assessed in the status of 'association of persons' is a reasonable one ?' Question in respect of Department's Appeals : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is ...
A. Doss Arockianathan Vs. S. Rita
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ194
K. Shanmukham, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. His landlady, the respondent herein came forward with H.R.C. 4135 of 1920 on the file of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras seeking the petitioner's eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Rent Controller accepted the grounds of wilful default and nuisance and therefore directed eviction of the petitioner. On the petitioner's appeal, H.R.A. 798 of 1981, on the file of the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the Appellate Authority some what differed from the learned Rent Controller and held that the tenant was guilty of wilful default and that the tenant was not liable to be evicted on the complaint of nuisance, while it confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller regarding the landlord's case for additional accommodation. In view of its finding on the ground of wilful default, the appellate a...
K. Sudarsan and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad292
ORDER1. These writ petitions give rise to certain interesting questions of law. The petitioners in W. P. 1127 of 1980 and W. P. 2415 and 2116 of 1982 are merchants and they have their shops in Ranganathan St. T. Nagar, Madras. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to act according to law in removing the hawkers and pedlars from Ranganathan Street, Madras 17 and also the pavements and kerbs therein and to render them absolutely free from obstruction for vehicles and pedestrians from access to the petitioners, shops. Respondents 4 and 5 have been impleaded as additional respondents. The 4th respondent is the President of the Anna Sirukadai Viyabarigal Sangam.2. The petitioners in W. P. 7078 of 1980 and 1049 of 1981 are shop owners who carry on their business in N. S. C. Bose Road and Rattan Bazar Road, Madras 1. The prayer in these writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents viz., the Municipal Corporation of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »