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.
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC180(Mad)
1. The State of Tamil Nadu is the petitioner in this tax revision case. The assessment year is 1968-69. 2. Three points of dispute arise in this tax revision case and they are : (1) Whether the supply of raw materials by the assessees, viz., Thiruvalargal Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras, to their customers on purchase orders were all towards works contract not exigible to tax or whether they are sales exigible to tax (2) Whether the dismissal of the enhancement petition filed by the State is right in respect of turnover of Rs. 2,89,002 where original invoices had been cancelled in toto and fresh invoices had been raised for the sale of vehicles either locally or outside the State and tax paid thereon under the local Sales Tax Act, and Central Sales Tax Act were paid and (3) Whether the transactions amounting to Rs. 5,13,968.53 are sales in the course of import and are exempt from taxation 3. It is convenient to refer to the facts relevant for every one of the questions stated above and to d...
A. Brahmaraj Vs. Sivakumar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ376
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The third petitioner in C. P. No. 48 of 1978 is the appellant in these two original Side Appeals. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the respondents in the Company petition and respondents 6 to 8 herein are the parties sought to to be impleaded as co-respondents in the company petition. The petitioners in the company petition are 8 in number, including the present appellant. For convenience sake. we shall refer to the parties as they stand arrayed in the company petition, and we shall refer to respondents 6 to 8 in these appeals as third parties since they have not yet been impleaded in the company petition. C. P. No. 48 of 1978 is a petition by the petitioners under Section 398 of the Companies Act I of 1956, and if occasion comes, it will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. The petitioners are shareholders of Sivakumar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company. The prayers projected in the company petition run as follows:(a) That the resoluti...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L. G. Balakrishna and Bros. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Mad)59
ORDER : Ramanujam, J. - These reference application relate to the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. The revenue seeks a reference in these application on the following questions, as arising out of the order of the Tribunal.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of electrical machineries like generator ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the provision of coffee, tea, etc. to customers should not be disallowed as being in the nature of an entertainment expenses but should be treated as an admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'So far, as the first question is concerned, ld. counsel for the revenue represents that he is not pressing the said questions.2. So far, as the second question in concerned, it is seen that thi...
Bakul Cashew Company Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT379(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Saturday, the 2nd day of April, 1983 and this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 16-6-1981 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records of the Respondents relating to the order No. 370-B/71, dated 2-6-1981 on the file of the 1st Respondent comprised in their return to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. G. Ramaswami, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. K. N. Balasubramaniam, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents the Court made the following order :- 2. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 2-6-1981 and made in Order No. 370-B/81. 3. The facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows : The petitioner firm carries on business in the manufacture of cashew kernels at Quilon and has got branch...
Chettinad Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR57(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 8(a) of the Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was justified (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have considered the contention of the assessee on matters which have become concluded by the findings in the original assessment and not dealt with the same in the reassessment proceedings ?' 2. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the above reference may briefly be stated. The companies (profits) surtax assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 was originally completed on August 1, 1970. The ITO reopened the assessment under s. 8(a) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Surtax Act on July 20, 1972, on the ground that ...
Margabandhu and anr. Vs. Kothandarama Mandhiri and 0rs.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad270; (1987)IIMLJ267
1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants herein. They are the children of the first plaintiff, who is the wife of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the second defendant is the concubine of the first defendant and defendants 3 to 6 are the children through the second defendant. The suit was laid by the mother and her two children for maintenance of the first plaintiff and for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share belonging to plaintiffs 2 and 3.2. The first defendant resisted the suit contending that the second defendant is not his concubine, but a lawfully wedded wife. Therefore, defendants 3 to 6 are the legitimate heirs of the first defendant along with plaintiffs 2 and 3. Thus, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 will be entitled each to 1/5th share. The claim for maintenance is resisted on the ground of voluntary desertion.3. On these contentions, the trial Court found that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to partition and separate, possession of their ...
Bakul Cashew Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC289; 1985LC207(Madras)
ORDERMohan, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 2nd June, 1981, and made in order No. 370-B/81.2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner-firm carries on business in the manufacture of cashew kernels at Quilon and has got branch offices in Bangalore and a few other places. It entered into a new venture of exporting tapioca chips to foreign countries in order to help the poor agriculturists of Kerala. The firm also earned valuable foreign exchange for India thereby. The contract of sale and export was with Messrs. Gramania B.V. Rotterdam, through their brokers in India for the export of 5,000 tonnes of tapioca chips in the first instance. The size of the tapioca chips to be exported was to the range of 1.5 per cent (large size). The firm submitted the necessary papers for clearance with the customs authorities. Clearance was granted on 2nd February, 1978. Accordingly, a quantity of 5...
N.S.S. Sivanu Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. Sivapakia Nadar by G. Srini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ243
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The landlord within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act XXIV of 1956, hereinafter referred to as Act XXIV of 1956, is the petitioner in these revisions. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 533 of 1982 and the two respondents in C.R.P. No. 534 of 1982 are the cultivating tenants within the meaning of Act XXIV of 1956. The first respondent is common to both the revisions. The cultivating tenants have filed substantive applications under Section 5(2) of Act XXIV of 1956, the relevant part of which reads as follows:(2) Whenever adverse seasonal conditions result in the reduction of the gross produce from any particular crop to the extent of more than 25 per cent, the landowner shall be bound to remit a proportionate part of the fair rent due to him from his cultivating tenant in respect of that land for that period:Provided that before admitting or inquiring into an application made by a cultivating tenant for remission of fair re...
Sivathanu (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Kaliammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ110
V. Ratnam, J.1. This second appeal, at the instance of the defendant in O.S. No. 824 of 1974, Principal District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil, has been entertained on the following substaintial question of law:Whether the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the judgment in O.S. No. 120 of 1952 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil?' O.S. No. 120 of 1969, on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil, was instituted by the respondents in this second appeal and by the predecessors-in-title of some of them (one daughter and the descendants of two other daughters of one Thanuvan Arumugham) against the appellant and another Subramonian for a declaration of their title to and possession of the suit property, for a declaration that the defendants in that suit had neither title to nor possession of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant and Subramoniam from entering upon the suit property bearing survey No. ...
Vellore Radha Jayalakshmi Funds (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR480(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee-company carries on business in chit funds. At the time of auctioning the chit, it invariably collects a fixed amount, which it credits to a charity account in its books. Under an article of its articles of association, the amount collected as donations for charity have to be utilised for the charitable objects specified therein. Whatever amount the assessee spends for such charitable objects is debited in the same account. 2. The ITO, while completing the assessment originally for the year 1967-68, did not include the said charity. Later, he reopened the assessment under s. 147(a) of the Act; 1961 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the ground that the charity collections amounting to Rs. 1,704 had escaped assessment. He then completed the reassessment by including the income of Rs. 1,704 treating it as a trading receipt. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC, who held that the receipts by way of charity have to be assessed to tax as a trading receipt bu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »