Chennai Court September 1983 Judgments
Universal Radiators Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR556(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. A partnership, under the name and style of M/s. Universal Radiators, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of radiators and in the course of such business, supplied radiators to the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur. Owing to the detection of defects in the goods supplied, the Gun Carriage Factory authorities cut a portion of the amounts specified in the bills and the partnership was not apprised of the cuts. The books of the partnership showed that a sum of Rs. 27,393.75 was due from the Gun Carriage factory as on April 1, 1969. the assessee-company took over the business, assets and liabilities of the partnership and this included the sum of Rs. 27,393.75 due from the Gun Carriage Factory. Out of this sum of Rs. 27,393.75, the assessee realised a sum of Rs. 6,025.50 on May 24, 1970. Thereafter, in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the assessee was unable to realise the balance of Rs. 21,368 and reminders, the assessee was unable to realise the balan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Priva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: [1990]183ITR465(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following common question has been referred to this court in T. C. Nos. 320 and 321 of 1978 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts credited in the asset replacement reserve, debenture redemption fund and staff retirement gratuity reserve should be taken into account for the purpose of computation of capital for the purposes of surtax?' 2. In T. C. Nos. 375 of 1978, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question again at the instance of the Revenue: 'Whether, on the fact's and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts credited in the assets replacement reserve and debenture redemption fund of Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 21,071, respectively, should be tax into account for the purpose of computing the capital for the purpose of surtax?' 3. The assessee-company, in the course of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Kamaraja Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR703(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is the proprietor of a rice mill and has been carrying on the business of purchasing and selling paddy, rice and gunny bags. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee submitted a return on July 30, 1965, disclosing a total income of Rs. 44,997 from his business. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed that the entries in the accounts of the assessee revealed that on December 16, 1964, five hundi loans of Rs. 20,000 each had been advanced to the assessee by five bankers, Atmaram Rupchand, Nandlal Tikamdas, Shamlal Maheshlal, Gopaldas Sugnichand and Paramanand Kishindas and that a sum of Rs. 4,050 has also been paid to them towards interest on these borrowings. Since the assessee did not furnish satisfactory proof of the genuineness of these hundi transactions which figured in his account books, the ITO treated the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as income from undisclosed sources and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,27,000. O...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ready and ors. Vs. S. Vasudevayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ22
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The landlords within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are the petitioners in this revision. The respondent herein is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. Now it has been found as a finding of fact that the third petitioner alone is entitled to the premises in question by virtue of an arrangement inter se amongst the petitioners. The petitioners sought the eviction of the respondent under Section 10(3) (a) (Hi) of the Act on the ground of requirement of the premises for the business of the third petitioner. The said business is stated to be an engineering business. The respondent contested the move of the petitioners for eviction and this contest was tested by the Controller and rejected by him, and the Controller ordered eviction of the respondent. The respondent appealed and the appellate authority has chosen to take a different view and has allowed the appeal, setting asid...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sambaudan and anr. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ116
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. C.R.P. NO. 2875 of 1983 : Tenants are petitioners. Respondent filed a petition under Section 10(2)(vii) of Act XVIII of 1960 claiming that the first petitioner herein, in spite of full knowledge of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of petition premises, had deliberately denied her title joining hands with the second petitioner who is an unauthorised sub-tenant, and hence, they are liable to be evicted. She preferred H.R.C. No. 2776 of 1981 for eviction of these two persons on the ground of wilful default committed by first petitioner and unauthorised subleting by him to the second petitioner herein and in the course of the said proceedings, since a stand had been taken that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because land alone had been taken on lease, she had to file the present petition.2. Both the petitioners herein, as respondents in H.R.C. No. 2776 of 1981, filed a common counter claiming that second p...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Paper Mill Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas320(Mad)
S. Natarajan, J. 1. Both these petitions are connected and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The former petition has been filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 10, 12 and 14 and the latter petition has been filed by accused No. 13 in C.C. No. 7571 of 1979 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. The two petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the criminal case mentioned above. The Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras, who is the complainant in the case, has filed the complaint against the petitioners and two other accused, viz., one T.R. Dharaneedharan (accused No. 4) and S.T. Adityan (accused No. 11), alleging commission of offences under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 58A(3)(a) and section 58A(5) of the COmpanies Act, 1956. The complaint proceeds as follows: The first accused is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian C...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Mad130
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The following quetion has been referred for the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court by Kader J. -'Whether S. 80 of the Railways Act as amended excludes the operation of S. 20 of the Civil P.C.- and Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent?'The question has arisen for consideration in the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a company incorporated Linder the Companies Act, having the registered office at Bangalore and carrying on business at Kalarnassery, Ernakulam. The second plaintiff is a registered society carrying qn business at P.W. Satsung Bihar. The third plaintiff is the insurer who has settled the claims of the second plaintiff and got subrogated to the rights, having its registered office at Madras. A consignment of one case containing HNIT printing machine Letter Press Atesa/RTE 1052, was entrusted by the first plaintiff to the first defendant Southern Railway administration at Cochin Harbour terminus for being delivered to the second plaintiff at Bai...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas30(Mad); [1985]152ITR557(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee was carrying on banking business in India and abroad. With effect from July 18, 1969, the banking business carried on by the assessee and others was acquired under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and the assessee was later compensated by bonds of the value of 2.3 crores of rupees. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72 (for the accounting year ending on December 31, 1970), in the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO found that the assessee had not done any business in India, but had earned interest on the bonds and proceeded to determine the income of the assessee under the head 'Other sources' and brought to tax an amount of Rs. 18,07,868 under that head. Deducting a sum of Rs. 3,000 under s. 80L of the I.T.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and after set off the business loss arising from Malaysian business, the income was determined at Rs. 11,65,820. In the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Pugal Vs. Kamala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad262; (1984)1MLJ414
Paidmanabran, J.1. This original side appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge by which he dismissed Appln. No. 1165 of 1981 which is filed by the appellant-plaintiff for setting aside the dismissal of C. S. 246 of 1973 in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs suit was taken up for trial on 26-11-1979. On that day, the plaintiff applied for time on the ground that he had to obtain certain documents. The adjournment was refused by Nainar Sundaram, J. On the very saint day, the learned Judge dismissed the suit. While dismissing the suit the learned Judge observed that the plaintiff has declined to lead evidence and prosecute the suit on the ground that he had to get documents from, other sources. Further, the learned Judge observed that the plaintiff had to discharge his burden of proof so as to enable the Court to consider the grant of reliefs prayed for by him and the plaintiff was not prepared to produce his evidence to substantiate his case. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sivasankaran Vs. H.K.N. Kacharlal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad37; (1984)1MLJ155
Padmanabran, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to by Mohan, J. for an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench. First is, whether a member of the family could seek the benefit of S. 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The second is, where during the pendency of rent control proceedings, the landlord executes the order of eviction and obtains possession, whether on the reversal of that order of eviction, restitution is possible. 2. We shall take up for consideration the first question, namely, whether a member of the family could seek the benefit of Sec. 10(3)(c), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for a decision by a Bench in view of' the conflict between the decisions in Ramalingam v. Kothandaraman : (1980)2MLJ283 decided by Mohan, J. and in Surekha v. Union Bank of India, Madras 1980 93 MLW 284, decided by Rathnam, J. in C. R. P. No. 2917 of 1980, the landlord is the owner of ground and premises No. 1, Palaya...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »