Chennai Court August 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, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Metal Powder Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: [1984]145ITR510(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of aluminium powder and aluminium paste. The assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the year 1971-72, in working out the capital base for purposes of calculating relief under s. 80J, the assessee, while filing its return, had not taken into account the provision for taxation. Later, the company had taken into account the tax liability for 1967-68 at Rs. 1,11,469 and for 1968-69 at Rs. 1,73,668. The ITO found that in the balance-sheet the assessee had made a provision for tax on the first day of the accounting year, viz., October 1,1969, at Rs. 3,66,566. He therefore, deducted the said sum of Rs. 3,66,566, from the capital employed in aluminium powder unit No. I and computed the capital in that unit at Rs. 31,00,503. As regards the aluminium paste unit No II, the ITO accepted the claim of the assessee that relief under s. 80J is due on t...
G. Rangaraju Chettiar Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad147; (1984)1MLJ125
ORDER1. The first defendant-respondent in court below is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents herein filed E, A. 1703 of 1981 and 1778 of 1981 in 0. S 841 of 1964, under Sections 148 and 151, Civil P. C. to condone the delay in depositing the sums as per condition mentioned in the final decree dated 9-7-1980, which is the outcome of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Under Clause (6) of the decree, defendants 2 to 9 were to pay the amounts mentioned in Cls. (2) to (5) to the respondent first defendant and the plaintiff, within six months from the date of the final decree. As per Clause (7), first defendant was to deliver possession of the portion of Item I in his possession, through his tenant, to defendants 2 to 9, by attainment at the time of payment of Rs. 20,000 as stated in paras 2, 3 and 5 therein. The last date for payment was 9-1-1981. On 2-2-1981, the revision petitioner sent a notice drawing the attention of respondents about the non-payment of the amount...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii, Madras Vs. Madras Motors ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR150(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Chapter VI-A should be given from the gross total income before setting off of past losses, unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 80L, 80M and 80Q for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1970-71, the ITO determined the net income at Rs. 24,981. After setting off 1965-66 unabsorbed depreciation, the net taxable income was, however, determined at 'nil'. The assessee filed an appeal before the AAC cleaning that it was eligible for the relief under ss. 80L, 80M and 80Q of the I.T. Act, 1961. (hereinafter ...
Sakthivel Factory Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC214(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax case, the petitioner seeks to canvass the correctness of the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We do not see how this revision could be entertained by us. Under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a revision could be entertained from the order of the Tribunal only on a question of law. Here the order passed by the Tribunal is a discretionary one. The Tribunal did not choose to exercise its discretionary power to excuse the delay in filing the appeal, and no question of law can be said to arise from such a discretionary order. In this case, the petitioner filed the appeal after a delay of 120 days, along with an application for the condonation of the delay. The delay was sought to be explained by the petitioner by producing a medical certificate showing that the petitioner was suffering from peptic ulcer and that she was ad...
Rajasthan Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner, Board of Revenue (Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC113(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The appellant is a dealer in blue-metal jelly. In the course of its business, it sold blue-metal jelly obtained from its quarry. For the assessment year 1974-75, the appellant reported in its monthly A-2 returns a total turnover of Rs. 9,67,244.31 out of which exemption was claimed in respect of a turnover for Rs. 2,09,168.56 by the appellant as transport charges. The assessing authority called for the accounts and refixed the total as well as the taxable turnover at Rs. 10,15,711. In doing so, the assessing authority negatived the claim for deduction of the transport charges made by the appellant under rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), on the ground that the blue-metal was delivered by the appellant at the site of the buyer and the sale price included transport charges incurred prior to sale, and therefore could not be deducted under rule 6(c)(i) of the Rules. 2. The inclusion of the transport charges in ...
Rupalochani Saraswathiammal and ors. Vs. Sundaranarayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad266; (1984)1MLJ366
ORDER1. In these revisions, the correctness of the, order of eviction passed against the petitioners in R. C. O. P. 106 of 1974 and 78 of 1977, by the Rent Controller, Salem, and confirmed in, C. M. A. 20 and 21 of 1981 by the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Salem, is questioned. The facts may now be briefly stated. The first respondent in these revision petitions is the owner of the properties forming the subject matter of these revisions. On 29-9-1965, a lease in favour of the second respondent herein for a non-residential purpose, namely, for the purpose of running an X-ray clinic on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- was given in, respect of one of the items. Again on 1-4-1966, a lease was granted to the second respondent herein on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/- for non-residential purposes, in respect of another item. In so far as the lease dated 29-9-1965 is concerned, it was specifically granted only for the running of an X-ray clinic. There was also a prohibition regarding the sublet...
Reichhold Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC58; 1984(16)ELT228(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Company manufacturing various chemical products such as Super Beckamine, Beckamine etc. This is done after taking out a licence from the Central Excise department. During the earlier part of 1967, the petitioner was removing these products declaring them as 'Alkyed resins' and claiming exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 156 of 1965, dated 23-9-1965. After consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the chemical composition of the products, the third respondent (Assistant Collector of Central Excise) passed an order dated 16-8-1968, holding that the products manufactured by the petitioner are only 'modified alkyed resins' and as such the exemption under the said notification was not available. Accordingly, a demand for a sum of Rs. 62,627.97 being the excise duty payable for the goods cleared during the period from 14-11-1967 to 5-4-1978 was raised. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Centr...
Deivani Ammal and anr. Vs. Sabbiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ267
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 554 of 1974 On the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, challenging the correctness of the judgment of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A.S. No. 30 of 1978. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The first appellant is the wife and the second appellant is the minor daughter of the respondent herein. The first appellant married the respondent in the year 1967 and the second appellant was born as a result of the said marriage. The first appellant's case is that she lived happily till the middle of 1970, when the respondent took the jewels worth about Rs. 1,500 from the first appellant and sold them as a result of which there was a misunderstanding. The respondent ill-treated the first appellant intending to marry his sister's daughter as his second wife. The ill-treatment was also due to the instigation of the sister of the respondent. Eventually, the first appellant was sent ...
B. Rama Subba Reddi and ors. Vs. P. Subbayyamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ390
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The revision petitioners are the respondents 1 to 8 in the eviction petition, H.R.C. No. 4596 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, XI, Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondents herein filed the petition for eviction on two grounds, one under Section 10(2) (i) for wilful default in the payment of rent by the revision petitioners 1 to 5 from September, 1980 to August, 1981 and for the subsequent period and another under Section 10(2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having sublet the demised building in favour of respondents 6 to 9 in the petition eviction petition without the knowledge and consent of the landlords. After sending a lawyer's notice on 3rd September, 1981, terminating the tenancy on the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting which elicited a reply from the first revision petitioner alone respondents 1 to 5 filed eviction petition and the petitioners 1 to 5, as respondents 1 to 5...
Vijaya Bank Vs. Kiran and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ32
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In this civil revision petition at the instance of the second defendant, O.S. No. 6931 of 1980, III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the only question that arises for consideration and decision is whether the City Civil Court at Madras where the suit had been instituted had jurisdiction to entertain the same. On 20th March, 1980, the first respondent, which is a partnership firm, applied for and obtained from the Karnataka Bank, Madras, the second respondent herein, an account payee draft for a sum of Rs. 15,344, payable to one R. Rameshkumar of Bombay, payable at the Bombay Port branch of the Karnataka Bank and sent it by post to the payee. The payee R. Rameshkumar, did not receive the draft sent to him by the first respondent and he had instructed the Bombay Port branch of the Karnataka Bank (the second respondent herein) to stop payment. In turn, on 28th March, 1980, the first respondent instructed the second respondent to stop payment. In the reply sent b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »