Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]56STC69(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a manufacturer of packing cases. It purchases timber in logs, cuts the timber into sizes and planks and thereafter makes the requisite packing cases. The question in this case is whether the assessee has purchased timber for consumption in its manufacture of packing cases so as to attract section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959. The Tribunal has held that the purchases of timber by the assessee is for consumption in the manufacture of packing cases, and therefore, section 7A stands attracted. The said view has been challenged by the assessee in this tax revision case. 2. On a due consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the timber purchased by it has not been consumed in its manufacture of packing cases, that the expression 'consumes' cannot be equated to 'uses' and that, therefore, so long as there is no consumption of wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]58STC140(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in and manufacturer of casting materials like flour mill parts, rice huller parts, etc. It reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 5,39,797.27 in its A2 returns for the year 1977-78 after claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 82,546.41. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Inspecting Wing I, inspected the place of business of the assessee on 10th June, 1977 and found that the accounts were written upto 9th June, 1977. He also took stock for certain items. Those items were verified with reference to the accounts and he found certain deficiency of the stocks. Again there was an inspection on 2nd February, 1978. At this stage, there was again a physical verification of the stocks and there was a certain deficiency of stocks. There was again an inspection of the premises on 15th December, 1977 when it was found that the assessee was not maintaining the stock and production accounts upto-date. Certain records and slips were also recovered. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]149ITR85(Mad)
1. The reference has been sought at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the following question :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 51,000 presented to the assessee on January 21, 1970, was not taxable as the assessee's income for the assessment year 1970-71 ?"2. The assessee was formerly on employee in the firm, M/S. Hasan Mohamed Rowther, on a monthly salary of Rs. 150. In 1943, he become a member of the Dravida Kazhakam and when that party was split he joined the Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam. Between 1949 and 1968, he had held various offices, viz., secretary of the taluk commitee and secrtary of the district committee. Because of increasing activity in the party, he left the job in M/S. Hasan Mohamed Rowther in 1968. He was also a municipal councillor for two terms in the meanwhile. Then he became a Memebr of the Legislative Council on April 21, 1970.3. Some time in 1970-71 an ad hoc committee was formed by his partymen to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad179; (1984)1MLJ171
Padmanabhan, J.1. This civil revision petition conics up before us on a reference, by Mohan J. in view of the fact that the learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Hathibudi Anandar v, Govindan, : (1981)1MLJ250 , which held that a foster son of the landlord cannot claim the benefit of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (for short the Act), in view of the definition ~f 'member of his family' occurring in Section 2(6-A) of the Act. Mohan J. has expressed the opinion that The question whether a foster son can claim the benefit of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act will have to be- decided on the facts and circumstances of each case and that to lay as a rule of absolutism that a foster son will not fall under the definition would be stating the law too widely.2. The question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the definition of 'member of his family' in relation to a landlord in Section 2(6-A) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ308
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. Vagaikulam village in Ambasamudram taluk, Tirunelveli District was notified and taken over under the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948), Survey No. 1061 of this village measuring an extent of 3-41 acres out of a larger extent of 13-06 acres is the subject-matter in this writ petition. This property was brought to sale in execution of a decree in O.S. No, 142 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, as the land belonging to one Sivananja Perumal Thevar, son of Subbu Thevar, who was the judgment-debtor in that case. However, the sale was not concluded probably for the reason that the decree-holder had been paid. The said Sivananja Perumal Thevar executed a sale deed in respect of the said property to his wife on 20th March, 1929. Though the notification under Section 3 of the Act and the date of vesting are not readily available in the records, it is seen from the impugned orders that the settlement enqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]149ITR104(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J. 1. The reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under s. 26(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958, in relation to the assessment for the year 1973-74 on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the rebate under section 18 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, on the entire amount of gift-tax paid in advance for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee had made the following gifts on March 24, 1973, March 28, 1973, and March 28, 1973, respectively amounting in all to Rs. 5,28,738. Date of gift Particulars of gift Amount of giftsRs.24-3-1973 Cash Gifts 4,00028-3-1973 4500 shares in T. V. SundaramIyengar and Sons Limited 4,90,00028-3-1973 240 shares in Southern Road-ways Limited 34,238-------------5,28,738-------------3. The assessee had paid advance gift-tax of Rs. 1,11,071 and April 6, 1973, on his own calculations of the share value o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]156ITR177(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case are manufacturers of printing types from 1947. During the year of account, the business of the firm was acquired by a private limited company, namely, M/s. Nelson Type Foundry Private Ltd., on April 15, 1973, as per the agreement entered into by the firm and the company on March 21, 1973. In the return of income filed by the firm, the firm has included business income of Rs. 2,09,589, which included s. 41(2) profit of Rs. 1,47,341. Besides, the firm showed capital gains amounting to Rs. 83,733 arising out of transfer of the land and building to the said company. Acquisition proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961, were initiated on the transfer of land and building to the said company. At that stage, the firm agreed for a fair value being fixed by the Acquisition Range at Rs. 4,25,294 as against Rs. 4,00,000 shown in the deed of transfer. Thereafter, the firm filed a revised return showing capital gains at Rs. 1,01,701. The assessin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ253
K. Shanmugham, J.1. The plaintiff who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. He brought O.S. No. 81976 of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with his construction of the walls A.B and A. C. as shown in the plaint plan and from in any way interfering with his potting up a window in the wall A. C. and for costs. The trial Court decreed the suit in respect of construction of the walls A B. and A C. as shown in the plaint plan, but dismissed the suit in other respects. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred A. S No. 33 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli The appeal was dismissed.2. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.Whether both the Courts below erred in recognising a right of privacy despite the decision of this Court in Sayyad Azuf v. Ameerubibi : (1895)5MLJ26 .3. A Division ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)2MLJ173
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, passed in W.C. No. 44 of 1978, by one K. Saraswathi the wife of the deceased K. Guruswami who was employed as a driver under the second respondent herein. According to the appellant, K. Guruswami died in the course of his employment and as such she is entitled to compensation.2. In the application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the appellant impleaded one S. Narayanaswami as opposite party No.l, the first respondent herein, since the registration of the lorry stood in the name of S. Narayanaswami and M. Palaniappan as opposite party No. 2, the second respondent herein, since he is the actual owner of the lorry. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Madras, was also impleaded as opposite party No. 3.3. The first respondent herein filed a counter statement before the Additional Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad90; (1984)1MLJ15
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal and the appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below to the effect that the enhancement of tax fixed by the Madurai Municipal Corporation who is the respondent herein from the second half -year 1979-71 is correct and is not ultra vires and illegal. 2. The plantiff filed the suit for declaration and consequential injunction alleging that the respondent had indiscriminately enhanced the property tax from Rs.27212 to Rs. 507-52 per hall Year from the second had Year 1970-71 and then to Rs. 583-16 from the second hall year 1971-72 and to Rs. 696-76 from 1973 Without any proper basis overlooking the protest made by the appellant and that the defendant had not adopted the principle or the method of fixing the annual rental value prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Time respondent resisted the suit an the ground that the suit is barred under S. 495 of the Corporation Act and that the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!