Chennai Court September 1983 Judgments
Tube Suppliers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR694(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following three questions of law have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Tube Suppliers Limited, Madras : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the unabsorbed losses relating to collapsible tubes factory for the years 1964-65 to 1967-68, being carried forward and set off against the income determined in the business of refractory works for the assessment year 1970-71 (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the activity of collapsible tubes and lamp factory related to a businesses, which ceased to exist and, hence, it cannot be set off against the income from refractory works determined for the assessment year 1970-71 (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sankarapandia Asari Sons Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD48(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri A. Krishnamurthy, Judicial Member - These are three appeals by K. Sankarapandia Asari Sons, Sankarankoil, relating to its income-tax assessment for the years 1977-78 to 1979-80 involving common and identical objections. The first objection in each of the three years relates to certain addition made for each year of a sum on the ground of poor drawings. However, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that he does not wish to press this ground. Therefore, this ground is rejected.2. The second and the only other common objection pertains to the determination of the income for the business of distribution of films. The question concerns the amortisation of the cost of films. The assessees method of accounting all along has been to write off the entire cost of distribution rights in the year of acquisition itself and valuing the closing stock at nil. It is also seen that the method adopted by the assessee as stated above has the blessing of the Madras High Court in the as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Madras Vs. E.V. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR189(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not attracted to the assessee's case for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' The assessee, in this case, is a film producer. For the assessment year 1966-67, he filed a return disclosing business income of Rs. 6,995. Before the ITO could complete the assessment, there was a search of the assessee's premises on May 11, 1966, when some incriminating documents and accounts had been seized, one of such documents being a note book, identified as No. 5. The ITO compared the entries in the said note book with those in the regular books of account and found that the assessee had shown some excess expenditure in the regular books and from that he inferred that the claims for expenses were inflated to the ext...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Balakrishnan and Bros. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR270(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The original assessments of the assessee-company for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were completed on October 31, 1966, and April 13, 1967, respectively. Later, the ITO reopened the assessments under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and completed the reassessments on May 8, 1969. The assessment for the year 1967-68 is an original assessment which completed on September 2, 1969. In the first two assessments, the ITO had allowed the claim of the assessee to relief under s. 84 in respect of Rubber Reclamation Factory. Later, in his reassessments, the ITO had held that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under s. 84 on the ground that the profits of the Rubber Reclamation Division had arisen from working of machineries not exclusively owned by the assessee and that of the total value of the machinery employed in the Division, not less than 20% was of the machinery taken on lease from Messrs. Rubber Products Company, Coimbatore, which had used these machineries previ...
Tag this Judgment!Periaswamy Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidam Welfare) Vridhachal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad142
1. The facts leading to the Writ Petition, shortly, are as under: R. S. No. 272/10-B and R. S. No. 303/5-B Chinnaparur village, Vridhachalam taluk, South Arcot District, is a joint family property belonging to the petitioner and the other members of his family. A proposal was WOOW out to form a path-way to the burial ground for the use of the Harijans of the locality. 7berefom, acquisition proceedings were started for this avowedly public purpose, under - the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. The petitioner, along with others, submitted objections stating that there was no need for forming a separate path-way to the burial ground for use by the Harijans; there was a regular road leading to the burial ground which Could be utilised by the Harijans also, and for the formation of pathway there was no need to acquire lands by disturbing the owners of cultivable lands.2. However, what happened was, in W. P. No. 797 of 1978, this court struck down Act 31 of 1978 as vires and offen...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannathan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1748
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision is preferred by accused 1 to 4 in Crime No. 49/81 of Ponneri Police Station, registered under Sections 448, 341 and 323, I.P.C. challenging the legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, before whom the abovesaid case is pending, rejecting the prayer of the accused in Crl. M. P. No. 1216/82 seeking the stoppage of further proceedings in the matter on the ground that the investigation in that case, which is a summons case, had not been concluded within a period of six months from the date of their arrest, as contemplated under Section 167 (5), Cr. P. C and seeking an order striking off the charge-sheet and discharging the accused.2. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the following grounds, viz., (1) that the perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the occurrence took place on 2-3-1981 and that the investigating officer had completed his investigation by 6-5-1981, (2) that t...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Represented by Its Secretary Vs. the Secy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ211
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner is M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged inter alia in the production and marketing of quality seeds from various centres in India including Tiruchirapalli since, 1968. The petitioner is one of the leading seed producers in the private sector in the State of Tamil Nadu producing, processing and marketing different varieties of cerelac, millets and vegetable seeds. The petitioner enjoys the reputation of being the quality seed suppliers to the Government as well as to the Seed Corporations which are sponsored and financed by the World Bank. The petitioner has a Paddy seed processing unit in Kattoor, Tiruchi District.2. The production and sale of seeds as opposed to grains that are available for human consumption does not require any licence under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959(hereinafter called the Act)...
Tag this Judgment!India Beedi Leaves Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC190(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax revision case the assessees question the levy of additional sales tax on them for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessees have been doing business in beedi leaves at Vaniyambadi and they declared a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 10,08,620.79 for the year 1975-76. After a check of the accounts, the turnover of the assessees was finally determined at Rs. 10,08,622. In the same order of assessment the assessing authority levied an additional tax of Rs. 4035. The assessees took the matter on appeal, but without success. The matter was then taken to the Tribunal by the assessees contending that on their turnover included the turnover relating to two of their principals, each of whose turnover was less than Rs. 10,00,000, their principals were not liable to pay additional tax and that if their principals were not liable to pay additional tax, the assessees were also not liable to pay the additional tax. The Tribunal dealing with the said contention held that...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kunhane and ors. Vs. Rent Controller Under the Act and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ185
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Abdullah Haji, who died on 17.11.1982.. Along with one K. Abdullah, he had taken on lease a building belonging to second respondent herein, for conducting a hotel named 'HOTEL NEW PARIS'. Second respondent filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of Act 18 of 1960 against them in R.C.O.P. No. 295/ 83 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, and secured an order of eviction. After an appeal was preferred by tenants, second respondent filed C.R.P. No. 2008 of 1975 in this Court against the appellate order, wherein they pleaded for one a half years time to be granted to vacate the property, and after recording the memo of compromise, an order was passed on 15.9.1978, granting time till 15.3.1980 to deliver vacant possession of the property. In spite of such undertaking on 7.3.1980 late Abdullah Haji filed O.S. No. 477 of 1980, asking for a declaration that the order of eviction dated 23.9.1974 passed...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Eastern Acquatic Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: [1985]58STC151(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that has been canvassed in this tax case is whether the goods purchased by the assessees and the goods exported by them are two commercially different articles so that the Revenue can say that since the same goods have not been exported, the last purchases are not liable to be exempted. 2. The assessees in this case effected purchases of frog legs for Rs. 2,56,509.00 and they claimed exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority found that the goods were not actually exported to foreign country by the assessees and that therefore they were not entitled to claim the exemption. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the goods were not actually exported, but had been moved from this State to another State and the assessees being the last purchasers of the goods in question, the assessing authority had rightly assessed the purchase turnover of the assessees at 5 per cent. The assessees took the matter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »