Chennai Court February 1984 Judgments
X-quiz-it Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC160; 1986(25)ELT6(Mad); [1985]60STC97(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In these tax revision cases filed by the assessees the only question that arises for consideration is whether pile carpets will fall under item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. The assessees were assessed for the year 1974-75 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the State Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the Course of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessees disputed their liability on a turnover of Rs. 27,143 relating to the inter-State sales of pile carpets. In the course of the assessment under the State Act the assessees disputed the turnover of Rs. 1,08,668.44 relating to sales of pile carpets. The assessing authority brought the said two items of disputed turnover to tax treating them as sales turnover of pile carpets. Appeals against the said assessments to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having failed, the matter was taken on appeal to the...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Antiseptic (Journal) 326, Thambu Chetty Street, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1984
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ232Mad; (1985)1MLJ1
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The second respondent in W.P. No. 1972 of 1973 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The first respondent herein is the petitioner and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as per their appellations in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15th September, 1972 passed under S. 19A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the same bearing the nomenclature of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 prior to its amendment by Act 99 of 1976. The writ petition came to be filed for the above relief in the following circumstances. The second respondent as a firm was carrying on the business of publication of two medical journals 'Antiseptic' and 'Health' at premises No. 323-324 Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1 even from the year 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)217; [1985]152ITR529(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in the law in cancelling the penalties for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding for each of these years that the assessee had not concealed particular of its income is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm carrying on business in tannery. As against their export of tanned skins, the assessee received import licences which were based on a percentage value of the goods exported. The assessee, however, did not actually import the goods against the said import licences, but had sold them as such. Since the assessee could not furnish the details of commodities covered by the licences at the time of the assessment, the ITO ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.G. Jothimani Nadar Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC319
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. By means of this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 2684 of 1980 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The said case has been taken on file in pursuance of a complaint filed by the respondent herein, viz., the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Madras.2. The petitioner is a repatriate from Sri Lanka and he is said to have been repatriated to India in or about 1972. On 3rd August, 1979, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate searched the house of the petitioner and seized therefrom Indian currency to the value of Rs. 30,000. When the petitioner was questioned, he gave a statement to the effect that one Cibar of Cibar Confectionary, Colombo, had requested him to receive a sum of Rs. 40,000 on his behalf and hand it over to him, that subsequently, a sum of Rs. 40,000 was handed over to his shop manager, Thiru Dhanasingh, and the shop ...
Tag this Judgment!Varadhalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD644(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal relates to the computation of income of the assessment year 1979-80.2. [This para is not reproduced here as it involves a minor issue.]3. The second point relates to the donation made by the assessee to the Chief Ministers Public Relief Fund. The authorities below were of the view that the assessee would not be entitled to the deduction of this amount as an expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business and the deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) would not be available unless these are vouchers to support the payments. In this appeal, the assessee has claimed that vouchers are available for verification land it is also stated that the donation itself was made because there was flood in the hereby Vaigai river which affected the workmen of the assessee-company and it was in inducement to get relief to the workmen who were affected by the floods. The contention of the revenue was that the...
Tag this Judgment!M. F. C. Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD951(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri C. Kochunni Nair, Judicial Member - Both appeals are by the assessee. The assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, with calendar years as the accounting year. The appeals are against the orders of the ITO passed under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The additional income-tax levied is Rs. 1,71,522 for the assessment year 1977-78 and Rs. 1,95,442 for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee is a private limited company. It busy and sell fertilisers and also mixes those and sells. Its accounting years ended on December 1976 and December 1977 respectively for these two assessment years. The impugned orders were passed by the ITO on 30-3-1981 for the assessment year 1977-78 and on 30-3-1982 for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee did not declare any dividend at all for any of these two years within the prescribed period of twelve months immediately following the relevant previous years, that is, within 31-12...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Pinto and Rotary Oil Owners' Association represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ328
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Respondent Corporation having increased licence fees for all trades, industries, etc., at double the existing rates with effect from licensing year 1984-85, these writ petitions have been filed claiming that the increase is disproportionate and in total disregard of the concept of quid pro quo which is an essential ingredient in imposition of fee. Learned Counsel for petitioners pleads that apart from several earlier decisions of this Court and that of the Supreme Court, the decision in Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab : [1979]3SCR1217 , having laid down certain tests to be applied and satisfied substantiating the legality of a fee, the reliance placed by respondents on subsequent decisions, rendered by Benches of Supreme Court composed of lesser number of learned Judges, cannot be relied on, and that they could apply only to the facts of those cases, and not as laying down a different proposition of law. Relying of Kewal Krishan v. state of Punjab : [1979]3SCR1...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A.M. S. Habibullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR259(Mad)
1. One A.M. Sahul Hameed died on May 25, 1965. At the time of his death, he war running a business in film financing and filed distribution and a rice mill as well. Sri T. M. Nagarajan was working a an accountant under the deceased and had also overdrawn, on his salary account, substantial amounts at the time of the demise of A.M. Sahul Hameed. The accountable persons filed an account of the estate and the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Thanjavur, computed the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 17,57,738. In doing so, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took into account Rs. 4,97,988 representing the book debts and other advances as admitted by the accountable persons after discussion with them and their representative and this included a sum of Rs. 21,340, representing the salary overdrawn by Sri T. M. Nagarajan. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Thanjavur, the accountable persons preferred an appeal to the Appellate Control...
Tag this Judgment!Marappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Sellappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad183
ORDER1. Defendants are petitioners. Respondents who are plaintiffs filed 0. S. No. 58 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Bhavani, for a declaration that they are entitled to irrigate their lands through the suit channel, and to restrain defendants from interfering with their right of irrigation, by way of an injunction. Written statement was filed on 10-11-1982, and issues were framed on 2-3-1983. The suit was taken up for trial on 28-6-1983, and adjourned to 14-7-1983, on which date, instead of any of the plaintiffs being examined, one of their vendors was examined as P.W.1.On 15-7-1983, Exs. A 1 to A3 were marked and P.W. 1 was examined on 16th, 18th and 19th of July 1983. On coming to know that plaintiffs were arranging to put one of the plaintiffs in the box for examination, I. A. 0. No. 1067 of 1983 was filed under 0. XVIII rule 3-A and S. 151 C. P. Code, to pass an order prohibiting the examination of any of the plaintiffs in the suit. The trial Court dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbatore Vs. A.N. Angamuthu Mudaliar and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC135(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J. 1. In this tax cases filed by the State the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether in a case where the seller agrees to deliver the goods at the buyer's place for a consolidated price it is open to the seller to claim deduction of the transport charges for bringing the goods to the buyer's place, under rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, merely on the ground that the transport charges have been separately billed for. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has taken the view that though the contract between the buyer and the seller provides for an all inclusive price for the goods to be supplied at the buyer's place, the split up of that price into two components, one representing the actual price of the goods and the other representing the transport charges will by itself enable the seller to claim deduction of the transport charges under rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The question is whether the view ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »