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.
A.V. Krishnamurthy Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ46Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order of Padmanabhan, J., in W.P. Nos. 2052 and 2053 of 1981. The parties in both the writ appeals are the same. The appellant in the writ appeals is the petitioner in the writ petitions. The respondents in the writ appeals are the respondents in the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties by their application in the writ petitions. 2. The necessary facts have been summed up by Padmanabhan, J. and we can usefully refer to them also. The petitioner joined the State Government Service as a Town Planning Assistant in the year 1953. In 1971, he got appointed as Joint Director in the Directorate of Town and country-planning. He was posted as Project Director of the Pilot Research Project in Growth Centre at Salem. In November, 1973, he was transferred and posted as Joint Director in the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Madras. In October, 1975, the Director of Vigil...
The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC63(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. All these cases are dealt with together as a common point arises for decision and relate to the same assessee, namely, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The circumstances under which these proceedings arise may be briefly noticed. The company manufactures and sells cement and is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The factory of the company is situate at Madukkarai, a panchayat township, about 14 kilometres away from Coimbatore. The company sells the cement manufactured by it at its factory in Madukkarai to consumers as well as stockists in accordance with certain standard terms and conditions of sale prescribed by the company according to which supply of cement has to be made in jute bags of 50 kilograms nett weight each. In case of transport by rail, the cement should be delivered to the carrier at the works' railway siding, while, in the case of transport by road, t...
Charles Hereward Simpson (Minor) and ors. Vs. Commissioner for Land Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad307
Sundaram, J. 1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by S. Natarajan, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 682, 695, 704 and 707/78. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petitions. We shall refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petitions for the sake of convenience.2. The writ petitions came to be filed under the following circumstances, as set out in the order of the learned single Judge. The petitioners applied for pattas under the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Ryotwari Settlement Act 30/64, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the lands, covered by title deed Nos. 3 and 15 granted by the Government of the erstwhile Travancore State to their great grand-father one Rev. John Cox somewhere in the years 1866 to 1875 for the purpose of coffee cultivation. Rev. John Cox established A coffee estate and built residential and other buildings. Subsequently, due to poor yield or dr...
Gopalakrishna Chettair Vs. W.K.A. Yakub Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad253
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam in C. M. A. No. 5 of 1982, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent herein at the instance of the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the premises which is occupied by the respondent as a tenant and in respect of which eviction has been sought for by him. The Petitioner who is the owner of the premises in question filed an application for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant, under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the TamilNadu Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, on the groun,,1 that he requires the premises bona fide for his own use. The premises in question is a non-residential one and the case of the petitioner-landlord is that he requires the premises bona fide for carrying on his business which is being carried on in a premises not of his own in Kumbakonam town. 3. The said application for eviction was resisted by the respo...
Kanakavali Ammal and ors. Vs. V.S. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ310
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in H.R.A. No. 2 of 1981 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein. The circumstances under which this revision came to be filed may be briefly stated. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction of the building in the occupation of : the petitioner herein. His case was that the building in question bearing Door No. 17 of 1948 stands in the north western corner of a plot of land having an extent of 29 cents and this land with the building is in the occupation of the petitioners herein, that the building and the vacant site was purchased by him for the purpose of locating an oil mill, that in pursuance of the object for which the land and the building had been purchased, necessary ma...
Charles Hereward Simpson (Minor) and ors. Vs. the Commr. for Land Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ157
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order passed by S. Natarajan, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 682, 695, 704 and 707/708. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petitions and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petitions. We shall refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petitions for the sake of convenience.2. The writ petitions came to be filed under the following circumstances, as set out in the order of the learned single Judge. The petitioners applied for pattas under the Tamilnadu (Transferred Territory) Ryotwari Settlement Act 30/64, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the lands covered by title deed Nos. 3 and 15 granted by the Government of the erstwhile Travancore State to their great grand-father one Rev. John Cox somewhere in the years 1866 to 1875 for the purpose of coffee cultivation. Rev. John Cox established a coffee estate and built residential and other buildings. Subsequently, due to poor yie...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.M. Finishing Centre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)200; [1985]155ITR791(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is a registered firm. It commenced production on September 18, 1969. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed higher development rebate on the machineries used in its business relying on s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i) read with item 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. The business operations of the assessee consisted of purchasing clothe manufactured by others and then bleaching, dyeing and sentering the same. Considering the nature of the operations carried on the cloth purchased by the assessee, the ITO was of the view that these operations did not amount to 'manufacture or production of textiles'. The assessee's claim for development rebate at the special rate of 35% was thus negatived. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal and the AAC found that though no 'textiles' as such were either 'manufactured or produced', the operations carried on by the assessee had the only effect of making the material more presentable and neater and, in that vie...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veena Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)233; [1985]155ITR794(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company which purchases cloth, stitches embroidery designs on it with the aid of machinery and dyes the cloth with the embroidered designs with a view to secure uniformity in colour. It commenced production on May 14, 1969. The accounting period of the assessee is the financial year preceding the relevant assessment year. In respect of the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed development rebate at the special rate of 35% on the basis that the activities carried on by it constituted manufacture or production of textiles within the meaning of item 32 of V Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The ITO allowed development rebate at 20% as, according to him, the activities of the assessee essentially consisted of embroidering designs on cloth purchased from other mills and the assessee was, therefore, not manufacturing or producing textiles as envisaged by s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i) read with item 32 of V Sched...
Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited and anr. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC113(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These tax revision cases, though preferred by two different assessees under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are dealt with together as they arise out of a common order of the Tribunal and a common question also arises for decision. Tax (Revision) Cases Nos. 101 and 102 of 1978 relate of Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, while tax (Revision) Cases Nos. 579 and 580 of 1978 are at the instance on Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. These four cases relate to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 in respect of both the sugar mills. Tax (Revision) Case No. 581 of 1978 is in respect of the assessment under the Additional Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 in relation to Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 2. The common question for decision in these cases is whether the turnover referable to the payment of transport charges is eligible for deduction from the purchase turnover...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chickanna Silk House
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)279; [1987]163ITR145(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. For the assessment year 1964-65 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 65,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1964-65 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal had valid material to hold that the assessee had not deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income ?' 3. For the assessment year 1966-67 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,595 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »