Chennai Court March 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.
R.M. Basha Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1984
Reported in: [1986]62STC432(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case purchased the old superstructures, belonging to Life Insurance Corporation of India, one situated at Broadway and the other at Dr. Guruswamy Road, for Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 77,666.66 respectively, on the understanding that the said superstructure would be demolished and the debris would be removed. The assessee, after demolishing the superstructures, had sold the old iron and timber materials. The assessee is also a dealer in old iron scrap materials. On the sales of old iron and timber materials by the assessee, the assessee was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,78,026.62 for the assessment year 1973-74, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that his sales of old iron and timber materials are second sales inside the State, the first sales being by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and therefore he is not liable to be taxed on this sales of old iron and timber materials got out of the demolition of the ...
Madurai Soft Drinks (Private) Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC94(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax case filed by the assessee, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,000 to the assessees' reported turnover for the assessment year 1980-81 is questioned. 2. The assessee in this case are manufacturers of soft drinks and aerated water. On 17th June, 1981 there was a sample survey and test check of the manufacture of aerated waters and soft drinks in their factory. Based on the survey, the authorities found that for one kg. of CO2, Gas, 238.9 bottles of Limca or 322 bottles of Goldspot could be produced. On the basis of the said finding arrived at, it was found that the assessees had shown lesser outturn of Limca or Goldspot in the previous year 1980-81. Therefore, the assessing authority made a best judgment assessment by adding 5 per cent. for probable omissions to the turnover returned by the assessees. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the addition to 2 per cent. which came to Rs. 43,426. Ther...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N. Gnanamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Mad)157; [1987]163ITR313(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the individual partners of the firm, S. M. K. Nataraja Nadar & Sons, Virudhunagar, are the real owners of the assets of the firm and hence the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was allowable to the said individual partners ?' '2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the term 'house' in section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, would refer to any building irrespective of the purpose for which it was used 2. The assessee and his two brothers are three partners in the firm of Messrs. S. M. K. Nataraja Nadar & Sons, Virudhunagar. Before the Wealth-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1974-75, the valuation date being April 13, 1974, the assessee claimed exempt...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. English Electric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Mad)219; [1985]151ITR116(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is a company and for the assessment year 1971-72, it filed a return declaring chargeable profits at Rs. 10,04,463. However, the assessment was made on a net chargeable profit of Rs. 16,39,345. The ITO found that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh shown as development and contingency reserve was not a reserve, but was only an appropriation in order to meet a future specific liability, the amount of which was not ascertainable. On appeal, the AAC held that no specific liability has been covered by Rs. 1 lakh and, therefore, the reserve could only be a general reserve and as such the exclusion of Rs. 1 lakh from the capital computation was not justified. 2. The assessee had also claimed before the ITO that the difference between the income-tax written down value and the written down value as per books of the assets as depreciation reserve should be included in the capital computation for surtax purposes. Holding that this reserve is not reflected in the balance-sheet of the...
G. Ganapathi thevar Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad282
ORDER1. This revision is preferred challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, passed in an un filed civil revision petition (C. F. R. 1825) dt. 20-4-1982, confirming the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam in P. T. 185 of 1980.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent temple in respect of cultivable lands. The respondent filed P. T. No. 185 of 1980 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent for faslis 1388 and 1389, amounting to Rs. 9680. The petitioner admitted the arrears and prayed for time. The Revenue Court has been repeatedly granting time for payment. On all the adjourned dates, the petitioner has been paying amounts in driblets, on 26-2-1982, the tenant offered only Rs. 500 though as on that date there was an arrear of Rs. 5480. The .respondent-landlord having refused to receive the amount, th...
Subramanian Asari Vs. Jayadevan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad372
1. This appeal under Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in A.S. 36 of 1970, wherein the learned Judge has confirmed the findings of the trial Judge, that in so far as the purchase of items 10, 11, 35 and 37 of the suit properties by the 9th defendant they were not supported by tarwad necessity. Aggrieved by their judgment, the 9th defendant has preferred this appeal.2. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 3 herein filed O. S-9 of 1968 on the file of the District Judge of Kanyakumari at Nagarcoil praying for partition and separate possession of their share in the tarwad properties. In seeking the relief of partition, they assailed the alienations of several items of tarwad properties effected by the adult members during their period of minority. The trial Court sustained the case of the plaintiffs and found that they would be entitled to a 3/10 share in the suit properties and consequently, granted a decree for partition in respect of that ...
G. Ganapathy thevar Vs. the Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ219
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This revision is preferred challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, passed in civil revision petition (C.F.R. 1625) dated 20-4-82 confirming the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam in P.T. No. 185 of 1980.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent-temple in respect of cultivable lands. The respondent filed P.T. No. 185/80 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for faslis 1388 and 1389, amounting to Rs. 9,680/-. The petitioner admitted to arrears and prayed for time. The Revenue Court has been repeatedly granting time for payment. On all the adjourned dates, the petitioner has been paying amounts in driblets. On 26-2-1982 the tenant offered only Rs. 500/- though as on that date there was an arrear of Rs. 5,480/-. The respondent-landlord having refused to receive the amou...
Mitsubishi France Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad300
Mohan, J. 1. The appeal is against an order of our learned brother, Singaravelu J. dated 7-8-1983, made in C. S. No. 44 of 1977, in and by which the learned Judge declined the request of the appellant to try the issue relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary for us to note the following few facts :O.S, No. 44 of 1977 is a suit filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (first respondent herein) against defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant, Mitsubishi France (SA) is having its head office at Paris, while the first defendant has its branch at Madras. The suit was laid for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,21,784.27 being the damages for breach of contract, with future interest. When the second defendant was served with the suit summons, it entered appearance on 13-10-1977 under protest and contested the jurisdiction of the Court stating that the plaintiff had no jurisdiction to institute the suit, becau...
Mitsubishi Finance (S.A.) and Carrying on Business Through Its Agents ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ369
S. Mohan, J.1. The appeal is against an order of our learned brother Singaravelu, J., dated 7-9-1983 made in C.S. No. 44 of 1977, in and by which the learned Judge declined the request of the appellant to try the issue relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary for us to note the following few facts:C.S. No. 44 of 1977 is a suit filed by Neiveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (1st respondent herein) against defendants 1 and 2. The 2nd defendant, Mitsubishi France (SA) is having its head office at Paris, while the 1st defendant has its branch at Madras. The suit laid for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,21,764-27 being the damages for breach of contract, with future interest. When the 2nd defendant was served with the suit summons, it entered appearance on 13-10-1977 under protest and contested the jurisdiction of the Court stating that the plaintiff had no jurisdiction to institute the suit, because the 2nd def...
A. Emberumanar and anr. Vs. K. Raghava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ383
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of the house, ground and premises bearing door No.6, Sarojini Street, Mahalingapuram, Madras-34, having purchased the same on 16-10-1980. The respondent is a tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building for non-residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/- payable on or before the 1st of the succeeding English calendar month. According to the case of the petitioners, after the property was purchased by them, they demanded the rent payable by the respondent for the period from 16-10-1980 onwards but that the respondent did not pay the rents every month but paid the rent on 17-1-1981 including the rent for the month of December, 1980 and that the respondent had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for 15 days in October, 1980 and for November and December,1980. It was the further case of the petitioners that they are carrying on business in a rented premises under the name and style of 'Rasi Enterprises' at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »