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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lekhraj and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)238; [1985]153ITR535(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that M/s. Ramchand and Company is not a benami for the asessee-firm and, therefore, the income from the said business should be excluded from the assessment of the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the onus is on the Department to prove that the firm, M/s. Ramchand and Company, was not a genuine firm carrying on business and the payment of commission and interest by the assessee-firm to M/s. Ramchand and Company was during the course of its regular business 3. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is based on valid and proper materials and i...
K. Ramaswami Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)204; [1987]163ITR94(Mad)
V. Ratnam, J. 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion to this court u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the 4 sum of Rs. 28,830 was not exempt u/s 10(3) of the IT Act, 1961?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1970-71 corresponding to the previous year ending on 31-3-1970 the return of the assessee disclosed a total income of Rs. 8576 consisting of pension, interest on securities, etc. In Part IV of the return, the assessee, while admitting a met receipt of Rs. 28,830 towards remuneration as arbitrator, claimed that it was exempt u/s 10(3) of the Act, as receipt of the casual and non-recurring nature. The ITO brought the receipt of Rs. 28,830 to tax, as ever since 1964-65, the assessee had been in receipt of such remuneration for arbitration and that had been assessed to tax, which had been acquiesed in by the...
M. Krishnan Vs. Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ133
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the courts below is the appellant. The suit was for obtaining the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction.2. The brief facts which require to be noticed are as under: The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 are brothers and the sixth respondent is their sister. All of them are the issues of the deceased Mari Mudaliar and the seventh respondent herein. Mari Mudaliar purchased the suit property of an extent of 4.79 acres under Exhibit A. 2 dated 18.4.51. He executed an unregistered will Exhibit A. 14 on 15.3.1965 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the appellant herein. Mari Mudaliar died in 1970, and after his death, the appellant claimed exclusive title to the suit property on the strength of the will.3. Respondents 1 to 3 did not concede the genuineness of the will and the appellant's claim of exclusive title over the suit property. Respondents 4, 7 remained ex parte.4. The principal defence of respondents 1 to 3 was tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›