Chennai Court January 1984 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.
AmIn and Co. Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad287; (1985)1MLJ78
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are dealers in handloom goods. They have a branch at Kadayanallur. On 24-1-1975, the plaintiffs' branch at Kadayanallur dispatched two bundles of handloom lungies valued at Rs. 10895-65 to the plaintiffs at Madras under their way bill the original of which has been marked as Ex B 1 in the case, through the defendants who are common carriers within the meaning of that term under the Carriers Act (III of 1865). The plaintiffs branch sent the original way bill to the plaintiffs by post on the same day of dispatch of the goods. On the next day, namely, the 25th Jan. 1975, the branch office sent another letter to the plaintiffs with reference to other matters connected with the businesses, in which also they made a reference to the dispatch of the two bales on the 24th. That letter was received by the plaintiffs on the 27th. On the ground that they have not received the original way bill sent on the 24th, the plaintiffs wrote to the Kadayanallur br...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Eyelets Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: [1984]55STC354(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in these tax cases is which an adhesive sold by the assessee under the name Fiksol falls under the entry under 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, covering 'dyes and chemicals' taxable at 8 per cent as contended by the revenue or at 4 per cent multi-point as contended by the assessee. In this case the assessee has sold the commodity called Fiksol-S. 69 and it claimed that this is chargeable only at multi-point. But the assessing authority, proceeding on the basis of a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his letter L. Dis. A-2/3220/80 dated 12th March, 1981, clarifying that synthetic adhesives, i.e., synthetic rubber solutions such as synotex are liable to tax at 8 per cent at the point of first sale under item 138 of the First Schedule with effect from 25th July, 1977, held that Fiksol-S. 69 being also a rubber based synthetic adhesive attracts liability to tax at 8 per cent under...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L. Venkatapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR178(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following common question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the IT Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the entire interest income received by the assessee on the enhanced compensation cannot be assessed to tax on receipt basis and only the proportionate interest referable to assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 alone can be brought to tax ?' 2. The assessee with his three brothers owned lands in Uppilipalayam village in Coimbatore District. The Government acquired some of these lands in three separate proceedings on the basis of three separate proceedings on the basis of three separate notifications u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 17-4-1957, 20-1-1961 and 16-4-1969. The compensation originally fixed was enhanced by courts and the assessee, as a result of the order passed by the courts, was entitled to receive interest on the enhanced compensation and the inte...
Chinnamman and Co., Pollachi and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad302
Natarajan, J.1. Both the appeals are connected and arise out of the common order of Mohan, J. passed in W. P. Nos. 382 and 516 of 1983. The latter appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, while the former appeal has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 516 of 1983. For the sake of convenience, we will refer the appellants in W. A. 941 of 1983, as 'the Electricity Board' and the appellants in W. A. 873 of 1983 as 'the appellants'. The writ petitioner in W. P. 516 of 1983 will be referred to as the 'first respondent.2. In the month of June 1982, the Electricity Board invited sealed tenders for the Lower Mettur Hydro Electric Project for concreting of sub-structure for power Houses at Barrage I and 11, near Chekkanur and near Nerinjipettai in Salem and Periyar Districts. Six persons, including the first respondent, submitted tenders. The tenders were opened on 8-9-1982 and they were evaluated on 8-111982. After evaluation of the tenders, the Electricity Boa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR489(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The Revenue in this reference petition seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee by way of travelling, stationary, salary, repairs to building aggregating in all to Rs. 67,339 were wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of transfer and, hence, are to be allowed as a deduction in computing the capital gains '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the net interest income from Indian Overseas Bank, Colombo, after deduction of tax deducted at source should be included in the assessee's case and not the gross interest ?' 2. However, after hearing the counsel on both sides at some length, we consider that question No. 1 does not require any reference, though th...
R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR493(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax reference petition, the assessee seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question for the opinion of this court! 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assets sold were capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) chargeable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a HUF, and for the assessment year in question, it filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,36,652. The ITO completed the assessment and computed the total income at Rs. 1,70,117. The ITO found that the assessee had sold 845 items of silver articles and vessels for Rs. 2,59,894, and that the assessee was in receipt of capital gains by such sale. The contention of the assessee that the profits on sale of silver articles were exempt from capital gains tax because the articles sold were for the personal use of the assessee and hence were not capital assets as defined in s. 2(14) of the I...
S.P.G.C. Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR484(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this reference petition, the assessee seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of investment allowance is not available to the applicant 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not manufacturing iron and steel (metal) and that denial of the investment allowance claim is just and proper ?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of purchasing tin sheets and converting the same into containers both plain and printed by a manufacturing process. It field a return of income admitting a loss of Rs. 7,72,540. The assessing authority determined the assessee's loss at Rs. 65,464. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee, inter alia, claimed investment allowance in respect of the machinery installed before February 2, 1977, to the tune of Rs. 24...
Indian Duplicators Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC263(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The appellant, who is a manufacturer and dealer at Madras with branches outside in duplicators, its accessories and duplicating ink, etc., reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 6,08,344.91 and Rs. 5,70,056.30 respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for 1972-73. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant claimed exclusion of a turnover of Rs. 90,500 being the value of 7,243 tubes of duplicating ink, on the ground it represented stock transfer from Madras to the Hyderabad branch. The assessing authority examined this claim and was of the view that the goods in question were moved from Madras specifically for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the Director of Stationery and Printing, Andhra Pradesh, and that this turnover should be considered to be inter-State sales falling under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Accordingly, the turnover of Rs. 90,500 was included and assessed at 10 per cent by the assessing autho...
K. Raju Vs. Third Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR139(Mad)
Gokulkrishnan, J.1. One K. Raju is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. W.P. No. 181 of 1983 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular, the 7th respondent, to return all the seized materials to the petitioner immediately including the fixed deposit receipts, etc., covered by the prohibitory orders to the banks. W.P. No. 182 of 1983 is for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from passing any order in respect of the search and seizure effected on March 3, 1982, and March 4, 1982, at the premises of the petitioner at No. 2/D, S. V. Lingam Street, K. K. Nagar, Madras-78, at the work-shops at (i) H.I.G. Flat Site, Ashok Pillar Road, K. K. Nagar, Madras-78, and (ii) Open Plot in Jeevanandam Street, K. K. Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83, and at Seelanaickenpatti, Salem. 2. The writ petitioner is a building contractor and a regular Income-tax assessee from the assessment year 1972-73. On March 3, 1982, the 7th respondent, und...
K. Raju Vs. Third Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem, and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Mad)200; [1985]153ITR138(Mad)
GOKULKRISHNAN J. - One K. Raju is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. W.P. No. 181 of 1983 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular, the 7th respondent, to return all the seized materials to the petitioner immediately including the fixed deposit receipts, etc., covered by the prohibitory orders to the banks. W.P. No. 182 of 1983 is for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from passing any order in respect of the search and seizure effected on March 3, 1982, and March 4, 1982, at the premises of the petitioner at No. 2/D, S. V. Lingam Street, K. K. Nagar, Madras-78, at the work-shops at (i) H.I.G. Flat Site, Ashok Pillar Road, K. K. Nagar, Madras-78, and (ii) Open Plot in Jeevanandam Street, K. K. Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Madras-83, and at Seelanaickenpatti, Salem.The writ petitioner is a building contractor and a regular Income-tax assessee from the assessment year 1972-73. On March 3, 1982, the 7th respondent, under th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »