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.
Subramaniam Vs. the Special Officer, Nambiyoor Town Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ247
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Sathiadev, J., dated 18th April, 1983 made in Writ Petition No. 2084 of 1953. The appellant herein filed the writ petition challenging the notification Na. No, 1333 of 1982, dated 3rd March, 1983 of the Nambiyoor Town Panchayat directing re-auction of the right to collect fee from the vendors at the weekly market at Nambiyoor. The appellant's case is that the first auction was held on 11th February, 1983, for the year 1983-84 in which the appellant was the highest bidder, his bid amount being Rs. 78,010. As per the conditions of auction published in the District Gazette in January, 1983, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 500 as earnest money, and after the bid he deposited 25 percent, of the bid amount, namely, Rs. 19,510. The appellant made representations to the first and the second respondents for the grant of the licence in his favour, as the period of lease would start on 1st April, 1983 and he had to make a...
Shantha Ammal and ors. Vs. Arasadi Karpaga Vinayagar Temple by Its Her ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ36
ORDERM. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4. in ejectment suit No. 156 of 1975 on the file of the IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, are the revision petitioners. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the first defendant from the suit building in his capacity as the Managing Trustee of a private trust. Subsequently, the first defendant died and the revision petitioners were added as his legal representatives. At the time when the suit was filed, Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 was in force and G.O. No. 1998 of 1974 had exempted all trusts, whether private or public, from the operation of the said Act. Therefore, it was that the plaintiff had to file the ejectment suit instead of approaching the Rent Controller. Subsequently, G.O. No 2000 of 1976 was notified by the State Government in suppression of all the previous Government Orders to the effect of exempting only public trusts from the operation of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 After the issue of the second Governme...
Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC160
ORDERMohan, J.1. The petitioner-company was incorporated in the year 1974. This was established as a joint sector limited company with 50 per cent of the shareholdings held by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited and the remaining 50 per cent being held by private individuals. The petitioner-company took out the necessary licences in form L4, etc., under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the purpose of manufacture of cigarettes in their factory at Hosur, Dharmapuri District. According to the petitioner, the Central excise duty is leviable under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under item 4 II and the present duty of excise on 'Duke' cigarette manufactured by the petitioner-company is a specific duty of Rs. 21 per 1,000 plus ad valorem rate of duty based on the slab in which the assessable value of cigarettes falls. Under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner is assessable on the basis of the value of the goods. The...
Mehru Belgam Vala and ors. Vs. G. Bell and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad351; [1984]150ITR51(Mad)
Singaravelu, J.1. Suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 1,16,540.30 with future interest and for another sum of Rs. 1,914.17. The plaintiffs case is this : The first defendant, namely, Messrs. G. Bell and Company, was carrying on business with the two plaintiffs as partners. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the other partners of the firm and each of them had contributed Rs. 10,000 towards capital and the total capital was Rs. 40,000. On June 30, 1977, the partners agreed that the plaintiffs may retire from the partnership and that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 will take the partnership firm of Messrs. Bell and Company with all rights and goodwill as a going concern. The goodwill was to be ascertained as per the agreement and half share of the goodwill evaluated shall be paid to the account of the first plaintiff. The accounts were audited and a certificate was issued on August 16, 1979. Thus, the balance due to the first plaintiff is Rs. 1,10,617.88 and to the second plaintiff is Rs. 26,407.48. The...
indo Burma Stationery and Paper Stores Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC290(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees in this case are doing business in stationery. They returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 21,38,873.70 for the assessment year 1975-76. They have maintained during that year all the required books of account except stock book, which every wholesale dealer is bound to maintain under rule 26(9) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. On the ground that the assessees have not maintained any stock account for the goods dealt in by them, which is a material defect warranting an addition of 1 per cent of the taxable turnover to the book turnover, the assessing authority added a turnover over of a sum of Rs. 20,977 (1 per cent of Rs. 20,97,749) to the book turnover of the assessees, while making the assessment on the best judgment basis. Against the said addition of 1 per cent, the assessees filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, sustained the addition on the ground that the assessees who are bound to maintain the stock a...
Mrs. Mehru Belgam Vala and ors. Vs. G. Bell and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ139
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. Suit is to recover sum of Rs. 1,16,540.30 ps. with future interest and for another sum of Rs. 1,914.17 p. The plaintiffs' case is this ; The first defendant, namely, Messrs. G Bell and Company was carrying on business with the two plaintiffs as partners. Defendants 2 and 3 are the other partners of the firm and each of them had contributed Rs. 10,000 towards capital and the total capital was Rs. 40,000. On 30th June, 1977, the partners agreed that the plaintiffs may retire from the partnership and that the defendants 2 and 3 will take the partership firm of Messrs. Bell and Company with all rights and goodwill as a going concern. The goodwill was to be ascertained as per the agreement and half share of the goodwill evaluated shall be paid to the account of the first plaintiff. The accounts were audited and a certificate was issued on 16th August, 1979. Thus, the balance due to the first plaintiff is Rs. 1,10,617.88 p. and to the second plaintiff is Rs. 26,407.48 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Carborundum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR759(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. For the assessment year 1971-72, corresponding to the accounting year ending August 31, 1970, the assessee filed its return to income of Rs. 1,66,00,810. In the statement accompanying the said return, the assessee has valued the stock-in-trade as on August 31, 1970, as follows. ___________________________________________________________________ As onStock-in-trade 31-8-1970 31-8-1969____________________________________________________________________ Rs. Rs.Raw material at cost 65,79,277 78,30,468Work-in-progress at cost 20,09,266 24,96,856Finished goods, at lowercost and netrealisable value 32,09,437 40,05,522Other goods at cost 49,471 82,266 ----------------------------------- 1,18,47,487 1,44,15,112____________________________________________________________________2. However, the assessee filed a revised return on July 25, 1972, showing the total income at Rs. 1,48,20,481. Along with i...
North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: [1987]165ITR623(Mad)
Ramanujam J. 1. The assessee is a co-operative society and it is being assessed under the Income-tax Act as an association of persons. For the accounting year ending June 30, 1966, corresponding to the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the following two sums : (1) Reserve for deficit in jail supply disallowed on Rs.the ground that it is a provision 4,803(2) Reserve for deficit stock disallowed on the groundthat it is a provision as in earlier years 1,13,589 2. Aggrieved by the disallowance, the assessee went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that under the Income-tax Act, no reserve can be allowed as a deduction. The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the sum of Rs. 1,13,589 represented the deficit stocks in various items and they were in the nature of handling losses, that usually the purchases are made in bags of different weights and they are reba...
M.K. Natesa Mudaliar and Sons by Partner M.K. Natesa Mudaliar and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ56
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 165 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif); Salem, for eviction of the tenants on three grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent for the months of July, August and September, 1978 under Section 10(2) (i) of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960; (2) for own occupation for the business of the landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the said Act; and (3) requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1) (b) of the said Act. The building is a non-residential building and the landlord had purchased the the building on 15th March, 1978 under the original of Exhibit B-2. The defence raised by the tenants was that because there was a competition between the landlord and the tenants in the purchase of the building from the previous owner and because there was no immediate reply from the landlord confirming the purchase of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Lucas-tvs Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR771(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of the assets for which deduction under section 35(2) was allowed in the earlier assessment years ?' 2. In this case, the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee is entitled to depreciation with reference to the assets for which relief had been granted under s. 35(2) in the previous year on the ground that the statute prevents the assessee from claiming the benefit of depreciation in respect of assets for which relief granted under s. 35(2) only for the same year had there is no prohibition from claiming the relief of depreciation in the other years. Subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal, s. 35(2)(iv) had been enacted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 with re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›