Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad246
1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of 21 cents of land comprised in survey No. 84/6AIA 2 situated at No. 140 Thiruvanmiyur village, presently Mylapore Triplicane taluk, and Madras district. This plot of land forms part of an approved lay out sanctioned in LPDM/DTP, 75/1964. D/4-8-1964 by the Director of Town Planning which also forms part of the plan approved by the Thiruvanmiyur Town Panchayat in its reference No. 96 of 1964, dated 27-8-1964 as plots Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner became the owner by purchase under a registered sale deed dated 5th Dec., 1966 from one G. Seth Jesudasan, son of GnanaPrakasa Achariar who in his turn purchased the same forming part of the large extent from his brother G. Bernard under a registered sale deed dated 5-1-1969. The patta concerning this land came to be transferred in favour of the petitioner on 11-6-1977. As a matter of fact, the petitioner produced the patta issued in his favour for fasli 1386....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ281
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is the owner of 21 cents, of land comprised in Survey No. 84/6A/A2, situated at No. 140, Tiruvanmiyur Village, presently Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk and Madras District. This plot of land forms part of an approved layout sanctioned in LPDM|DTP No. 75 of 1964, dated 4th August, 1964, by the Director of Town Planning which also forms part of the plan approved by Tiruvanmiyur Town Panchayat in its reference No. 94 of 1964, dated 27th August, 1964, as . Plot Nos 3 and 4. The petitioner became the owner by purchase under a registered sale deed dated 5th December, 1966, from one G. Seth Jesudasan, son of Gnanaprakasam Achariar, who in his turn purchased the same forming part of a large extent from his brother G. Bernard under a registered sale deed dated 5th January, 1959. The patta concerning this land dame to be transferred in favour of the petitioner on 11th June, 1977. As a matter of Fact, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]152ITR520(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee, in this case, is a registered firm. During the accounting period ending with March 31, 1972, the assessee did business in the name of Sardar binding works as also in the name of Chandamama Publications. By an agreement entered into between the assessee, represented by its managing partner, B. Viswanatha Reddy, and another partnership called Chandamama Publications, represented by its managing partner, B. Nagi Reddy, the assessee gave up possession of all the assets and liabilities, as detailed in the schedule to the agreement, in Chandamama Publications. On a settlement of the assets and liabilities as described in the schedule to the agreement, the excess of liabilities over assets came to Rs. 67, 687 and the assessee paid the said sum to the transferee who succeeded to the business of Chandamama Publications. One of the clauses in the agreement was that all the employees in that business would become employees of the transferee on terms no less favourab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)40CTR(Mad)146; [1984]150ITR237(Mad)
Ramanujam J.1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from the property known as 'Kannammai Building' is includible in the assessment of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee-firm is the owner of the property known as 'Kanammai Building', 122, Mount Road, Madras. The value of the building shown in the balance-sheet of the firm as on March 31, 1972, is Rs. 26,13,441. The building has been let out to various business concerns for rent and rents as also service charges are collected from them. Till the assessment year 1972-73, the income from the building was assessed as income of the firm. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee-firm did not admit either the rental income or the service charges received from the property. The assessee explained the omission on the ground that the building has been transferred by the firm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]153ITR408(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In all these cases, at the instance of the Revenue, common question has been referred to this court for its opinion and the question is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the additional compensation amount was not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 to 1975-76 ?' 2. Taking up first. T. Cs. Nos. 470 to 475 of 1978, the assessee is HUF representing two branches. The family owned some lands in Koyambedu village in Saidapet taluk, Chengalpattu district. The said lands were acquired by the Government for the West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme sponsored by the State Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,53,939. The assessee moved the Sub-court, Chengalpattu, for higher compensation by seeking a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The sub-court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 26,898. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1984(16)ELT3(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the Constitutional validity of S. 52 of the Finance Act of 1982, and the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82 [GSR 77(E)/82], dated 23-2-1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain moneys which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in Art. 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in the Notification No. 22/82 [(GSR 77(E)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational and discriminatory. 3. For appreciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is necessary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1988(38)ELT425(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 52 of the Finance Act of 1982 and the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82[GSR 77(E)/82] dated 23rd February, 1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain monies which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82[GSR 77(E)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational discriminatory. 3. For appeciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is nec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1985(5)ECC37
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner herein is seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of her husband Chinnadurai alias Durai, the detenu, now detained in the Central Prison, Madras, in pursuance of an order of detention passed by the first respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 236, Public (Law and Order-D) Department, dated 15th February, 1983 issued under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The grounds on which the detention order has been made are as follows:- On a specific information, the Aranthangi Customs Officers arranged for a road block on Aranthangi-Avudayar Koil level-crossing gate on the night of 13/14th August, 1982. At about 5 a.m. on 14th August, 1982, the officers noticed a Standard Van bearing registration No. MSQ 3095 coming towards Aranthangi. The vehicle did not stop despite the signals given by the officials. However, the said vehicle st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]58STC133(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The only question that arises in this tax case is, whether the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of compounding allowed under section 7 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authority, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have all held that since the assessee sought permission to be assessed under section 7 only at the time of final assessment, that is, long after the period mentioned in rule 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, he cannot claim to be assessed under section 7 of the Act. The Tribunal has referred to the fact that the power to exercise an option before the final assessment referred under sub-rule (4-B) of rule 15 has been withdrawn from 1st December, 1971 and stated that therefore, rule 15(1) has to be complied with. The assessee should have filed the petition exercising the option to be assessed under section 7 before the 1st day of May, 1971 under rule 15(1) and since the assessee has not exer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]150ITR639(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee, in this case, is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1963-64, it was assessed on a total income of Rs. 70,404 and the tax payable thereon was determined as Rs. 24,641. The ITO noticed that after deducting the aforesaid amount of tax, the surplus left with the assessee-company was Rs. 45,763 and that the sum of Rs. 31,250, being the dividends actually declared during the year of account, fell short of 90% of the surplus which should have been distributed by it as dividend, it being an investment company. He, therefore, initiated action under s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and required the assessee to show cause against the levy of penal super-tax. 2. The assessee resisted the proceedings initiated under s. 104 of the Act contending that 75% of the share capital was held by S.RM.M.Ct Thiruppani Trust, that the trust was charitable institution and, therefore, no order could be passed under s. 104 of the Act. The ITO, however, did not accept the ...
Tag this Judgment!