Chennai Court February 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.
V.S. Devadoss Vs. S. Velu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad150; (1984)1MLJ301
ORDER1. These civil revision petitions. at the instance of the landlords. are directed against the common order (if the Appellate Authority (11 Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras in R. C. As. 66 and 67 of 1992. arising out of M. Ps. 361 and 256 of 1980 respectively In H.R.C. 3643 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller (XII Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras. In that proceeding. the landlord prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent in these civil revision petitions and one Rajanaam under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) (wrongly stated as S. 10(3)(a)6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner crafted that he is the landlord in res0ect of the premises bearing old door No. 21 new door No. 30 Millers Road, and that the respondent was a tenant in modulation thereof. the tenancy being for non-residential pogroms of carrying on a business under the name and style ...
K. Sabanayakam and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ259
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. All the petitioners in these writ petitions have brought before this Court a common grievance to be judicially solved and decided. All the petitioners are in the service of the first respondent, Housing Board, hereinafter called 'the Board'. The prayer in all the writ petitions is for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners as Assistant Executive Engineers in the service of the first respondent from 23-12-1976 and consequently to give all the petitioners all the benefits, such as seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of scales etc., as if the petitioners had been promoted to the post of the Assistant Executive Engineers on 23-12-1976.2. The first respondent-Board was established under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. The first respondent, by virtue of the power vested in it under the said Act, had framed the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Service Regulations, 1969, which was given retrospective ...
Balamore Estate (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)231; [1987]163ITR195(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. All these six tax cases relate to the same assessee for various assessment years, and as the point involved is substantially the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The common point that arises in all these cases relates to the taxability of the turnover relating to the sale of albezia trees in the various years as detailed below : Asst. Yr. Value of trees soldRs.1973-74 18,878.001974-75 5,520.001975-76 43,782.001976-77 1,00,370.001977-78 60,900.001978-79 48,465.00 3. The assessee claimed before the Agrl. ITO that the sale proceeds of albezia trees was a capital receipt and, therefore, it is not exigible to tax, relying upon the decision is State of Kerala v. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. : [1966]60ITR275(SC) . But the Agrl. ITO brought the amount to tax treating it is a revenue receipt. The assessee took the matter on appeal to the AAC who confirmed the order of the Agrl. ITO. Then, the matter was taken to the Agrl. IT Appellate Tribunal and it has also held tha...
D. Palani Vs. K. Balasubramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ180
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The revision arises out of the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Srimushnam to Eyyalur. The length of the route is 49.2 k.m., which in motor parlance is called medium route. There were three applicants. Applicant No. 1 was absent, while applicant No. 2 the revision petitioner and applicant No. 3 the respondent contested the issue. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem Region (South Arcot District) held by an order dated 23.12.1981 that applicant No. 2 was entitled to 10 marks while applicant No. 3 was entitled to 8 marks alone. This was because the principal place of business or residence of applicant No. 3 was not either on the termini or on the route as required under Rule 155-A (3A) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. However he was of the view that neither of the applicants would be entitled to the permit. As regards applicant No. 2, he held that he had transport experience from 9.7.1979 and hence a recent grantee. He had surrendered his spare bus permit....
M. Abdul Rahman Vs. S. Sadasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ410
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This revision is filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) affirming the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing his eviction petition filed against the respondent tenant.2. The landlord/petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for wilful default in payment of rent and under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act based on his requirement of the building for his use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his own business; The tenant-respondent resisted the said eviction petition on the ground that he has not committed wilful default in payment of arrears rent and that the claim of the landlord that the building is required for his own use and I occupation for non-residential purposes was not bona fide. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary adduce...
Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD321(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri C. Kochunni Nair, Judicial Member - The question that arise in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 are dealt with as follows :2. (i) Foreign exchange fluctuation Rs. 13,471 - Whether revenue or capital [Assessment year 1978-79] :We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals). That is also supported by the decision in the case of Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1983] 4 ITD 41 (Bom.). Ground rejected.3. (ii) Disallowance under sections 40(c) and 40A (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) [Assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80] :We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals). The submission raised in the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before us that commission is not salary and that it is the principal and agent relationship and not employer and employee are not acceptable to us. Ground rejected.4. (iii) Bonus under the Bonus Act [Assessment years 19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.V.S. Sastry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR543(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following two common questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that when the Hindu undivided family business, after partition was converted into a partnership business there was no transfer involved and that, therefore, the development rebate allowed to the Hindu undivided family could not be withdrawn under section 155(5) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no violation of section 34(3)(a) ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, Shri M. V. S. Sastry. The Hindu undivided family, consisting of the karta and his three major sons, was carrying on business of printing and was allowed development rebate on the machinery used in that business. There was a partition o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.T. Investments and Trades Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)48; [1984]148ITR347(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment While completing the assessment, the ITO allowed interest on the excess advance tax paid over and above the amount which the assessee had to pay as tax as per the assessment. Subsequently, the said assessment was revised by the ITO invoking his jurisdiction under s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the interest already granted to the assessee under s. 214 of the Act should be withdrawn. 2. The withdrawal of the interest allowed earlier to the assessee by the revocation order passed under s. 154 was as follows : The total amount of income-tax payable by the assessee was determined in the original assessment dated June 28, 1976, at Rs. 80,176. The tax deducted at source amounted to Rs. 62,501. Apart from the tax deducted at source, the assessee had also paid a total sum of Rs. 1,85,200 by way of cheques as advance tax, and the details of the payments are set ...
Manickam and ors. Vs. Dharmapuram Adheenam and Mutt by Its Adheenakart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ189
S. Mohan, J.1. The second appeal arises under the following circumstances:The respondent/plaintiff laid a suit for recovery of possession in O.S. No. 249 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Mayuram and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The property that was demised was Door No. 22, Chithira Mela Veedhi, Kuttalam Town Panchayat. Admittedly, the suit building belongs to the respondent. The lease was on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/-. Originally the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P. No.l0 of 1974, against the first defendant for eviction of the first defendant on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent. That ended in an order of eviction on 25.2.1975. Aggrieved by that order of eviction, an appeal was preferred to the Sub Court, Mayuram (Appellate Authority). Pending appeal, G.O. Ms. No. 1998, Home, dated 12.8.1974 was passed, which ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller with regard to the properties owned by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Tru...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai District Central Co-operative B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)27; [1984]148ITR196(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - The assessee, in this case, is a co-operative bank. For the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1973-74, the assessee claimed deduction under s. 80P of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of interest income from securities and in respect of amounts received as subsidy from the Government. That claim was rejected by the ITO for all the three years on the ground that interest from securities which are to be treated as investments, cannot be treated as income from banking business and that it has to be treated as income from other sources. In respect of subsidies also, the ITO held that they cannot be treated as business income of the assessee. On appeal, the AAC agreed with the view of the ITO and rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction. The assessee thereafter took the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, following rulings of the Supreme Court in Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [1960]39ITR114(SC) and CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »