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.
Sivanandha Steels Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC157(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessees in this case are manufacturers of steel castings. During the course of assessment for the year 1974-75 the assessees claimed a deduction of a turnover of Rs. 1,51,878.02 on the ground that the said turnover represented sales returns in relation to sales that took place in the previous years 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessing authority disallowed the said claim on the ground that the claim in relation to those sales returns was beyond the period of six months from the date of sales and therefore the assessees would not be entitled to any relief. The assessees took the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the credit notes for the sales returns had been issued only after six months from the date of sales and therefore the claim of the assessees could not be sustained. On a further appeal to the Tribunal by the assessees, the Tribunal has, following the decision of a Full Bench of this C...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. V.S. Chelliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR590(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J. 1. These references have been made on the application of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', in R.A. Nos. 1315 to 1317 of 1972-73, under s. 256(1) arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 2629 to 2631 of 1972-73, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law, in holding that the premia paid by the assessee's wife out of her income, included in terms of section 64(1)(iv) in the hands to the assessee, should be treated as having been paid by the assessee and the deduction in terms of section 80C allowed thereon ?' 2. The assessee is an individual during the relevant accounting period. The assessee had made a gift of Rs. 1,02,000 in favour of his wife, Mr. V. S. C.Saraswathi Ammal, prior to the commencement of the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68. The am...
Mayfield Estate Nallakottah Nilgiris Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: [1984(48)FLR102]; (1985)ILLJ483Mad; (1983)IIMLJ439
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. Admittedly 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 appealed against. In so far as S. 2(1)(d) of the Act defines 'dependent' 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 Domjee v. Maung Mia sein 186 Ind.Cas. 93 and also B. M. Habeebulla Maricar v. Periaswami 1977 II L.L.J. 324. The further contention is that this is not a case of suo motu enquiry in which event S. 10A of the Act will apply. Therefore, where the party wants to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensa...
The English Electric Co. of India Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC214(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 2325 of 1979 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 6th March, 1979, passed by the 1st respondent, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tambaram Assessment Circle, Tambaram, and to direct him to grant permission to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on a provisional basis under rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the basis of the annual return submitted for 1978-79 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 2326 of 1979 is for a declaration that rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Tamil Nadu) Rules is ultra vires the rule making power conferred on the State Government, namely, the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner has been permit...
Sri Srinivasamurthy Mandiram, Represented by Its Executive Trustee D. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ352
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Land belonging to the petitioner were taken possession of by third respondent on 1st October, 1978, though petitioner would claim that it took place on 18th November, 1977. In appropriate proceedings, the actual date of entry will have to be determined. It is not in dispute that for constructing tenements under Vazhai Thoppu Slum Clearance Scheme aided by Housing and Urban Development Corporation, the lands have been taken possession of and tenements have been constructed already, by third respondent. On 21st July, 1975, the earliest of notices was issued under Tamil Nadu Act XI of 1971, calling for objections, if any. On 10th August, 1975, petitioner stated that it had no objection for the lands being taken over, provided due compensation was paid which should be beneficial to the Trust. There have been subsequent communications sent through counsel seeking for immediate payment of compensation since lands were being utilised, and third respondent was deriving ...
Mayfield Estate Nallakottah Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1983
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC284
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. Admittedly 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 appealed against. In so far as Section 2(l)(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 Domjee v. Maung Mia sein 186 IND.CAS. 93. and also B.M. Habeebulla Maricar v. Periaswami 1977 II L.LJ. 324. 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 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.M.B. Mohamed Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Mad)55; [1987]166ITR207(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a partner in a partnership firm known as oriental Enterprises. The assessee was the owner of a property at No. 20, G. N. Chetty Road, Madras. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee made a declaration to the effect of that the property situated at No. 20 G. N. Chetty Road, Madras. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 the assessee made a declaration to the effect that the property situated at No. 20 G. N. Chetty Road, will thereafter be the property of the firm, Oriental Enterprises. The consideration agreed to was Rs. 1,20,000 as against by the book cost of Rs. 76,000. The declaration was followed by the book entries by which the assessee account in the declaration was followed by book entries by which the assessee account in the firm was credited with the sum of Rs. 1,20,000 while a corresponding debit entry was made in the books of the firm. In the course of the assessment ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilandu-i Vs. Tamilnadu Co-opearative Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)38CTR(Mad)83; (1984)38CTR(Mad)83; [1983]144ITR74(Mad); [1983]144ITR75(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to make a reference on the following questions of law for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the profit on sale of fertilisers amounting to Rs. 42,34,291 for the assessment year 1974-75 is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the profit on sale of fertilisers amounting to Rs. 64,70,671 for the assessment year 1975-76, is exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. The assessee in this case is the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and it was assessed under the provisions of the I. T. Act in the status of an association of persons. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee claimed exemption...
Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: [1984]148ITR484(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessed. '(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 8,208 being expenditure on repairs, Rs. 20,436 being a portion of the municipal tax disallowed and Rs. 5,447 being ground rent (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 19,774 was income liable to be assessed for the assessment year 1966-67 (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the restriction under section 85A of the Act does not refer to any income exempt from tax under any particular head and that, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was correct in restricting the rabbet on donations in the hands of the applicant to 10% of the total income as reduced by the dividend i...
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR496(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee seeks a directions in this petition to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions as arising out of the order of the Tribunal : '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gratuity liability relating to the employees of Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd., transferred to Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd., is not an allowable deduction 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment was on capital account ?' 2. But the questions are covered by the decisions of this court in Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]100ITR341(Mad) , CIT v. Saklem Bank Ltd. : [1979]120ITR224(Mad) and CIT v. Pathinen Grama Arya Vysya Bank Ltd. [1977] 100 ITR 788. The assessee in this case in engaged in running a transport service. A port of its business was taken over by the Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd., along with the buses running on the routes taken over by the kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd., and its employees...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »