Chennai Court April 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.
Wahab Bros. Vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR27(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein has prayed in this Writ Petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dt. 10-10-1975 of the CIT, the 2nd respondent herein, confirming the order dt. 20-12-1973 of the IAC, the first respondent herein, so far as it directs the payment of interest u/s 139(8) of the IT Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 1972-73. 2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as Esso Dealers in Thanjavur. The firm was assessed to income tax on a total income of Rs. 70,300 by the ITO for the year 1972-73 as against the return of income filed by the assessee on 26-5-1973 admitting a total income of Rs. 60,406. While making the assessment on a total income of Rs. 3,416 towards interest treating the firm as an unregistered firm for the purpose of calculation of interest as per s. 139(8). The petitioner made a request to the IAC to waive the interest. But that request was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revis...
Chellapandian Vs. Meena Meccy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad289
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The finding recorded by the learned District Judge that the wife was a lunatic on the date of the marriage and subsequent to the marriage is based on the medical evidence as well as other oral evidence. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife wanted to challenge this finding, he found it difficult to point out any error such - finding-consequently the decree passed by the learned District Judge under S. 19(3), Divorce Act, that the marriage was a nullity has to be confirmed. The decree is accordingly confirmed. There will be no order as.to costs....
Chellapandian Vs. Meena Mercy, Through Her Guardian, Ratnambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ216
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The finding recorded by the learned District Judge that the wife was a lunatic on the date of the marriage and subsequent to the marriage is based on the medical evidence as well as other oral evidence. Though learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife wanted to challenge this finding, he found it difficult to point out any error in such finding. Consequently the decree passed by the learned District Judge under Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act that the marriage was a nullity has to be confirmed. The decree is accordingly confirmed. There will be no order as to costs....
Wahab Bros. Vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)216
: Ramanujam, J. - The petitioner herein has prayed in this Writ Petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dt. 10-10-1975 of the CIT, the 2nd respondent herein, confirming the order dt. 20-12-1973 of the IAC, the first respondent herein, so far as it directs the payment of interest u/s 139(8) of the IT Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 1972-73.2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as Esso Dealers in Thanjavur. The firm was assessed to income tax on a total income of Rs. 70,300 by the ITO for the year 1972-73 as against the return of income filed by the assessee on 26-5-1973 admitting a total income of Rs. 60,406. While making the assessment on a total income of Rs. 3,416 towards interest treating the firm as an unregistered firm for the purpose of calculation of interest as per s. 139(8). The petitioner made a request to the IAC to waive the interest. But that request was rejected. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a rev...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Ideal Ins. Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Mad)35
: Ramanujam, J. - The following common question has been referred to this court for its opinion, at the instance of the revenue, by the ITAT :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 44 of the IT Act, 1961 read with the First Schedule thereto, the assessee should be given credit for the tax deducted at source u/s. 199 of the IT Act, 1961?'2. The assessee is a general insurance company. For the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73 the ITO, while completing the original assessments, gave credit for the tax deducted at source. Subsequently he reopened the original assessments for those years u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and took away the credit given by him earlier for the tax deducted at source. For the asst. yr. 1973-74 in the original assessment the ITO likewise did not give credit for the tax deducted at source. According to the ITO in view of the provisions of s. 44 which require a separate mo...
B.M.S. (Private) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR758(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this reference petition, the assessee seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following three questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the write-off of Rs. 6,50,922 could not be allowed as a business loss (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no indication of any commercial expediency involved in the write-off of Rs. 6,50,922 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the write-off of Rs. 6,50,922, did not amount to any expenditure incurred by the assessee-company ?' 2. However, after going through the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and after hearing the learned counsel for the assessee at length, we are satisfied that no question of law, much less a referable questi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakina Bai Ibrahim and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR540(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax cases, the following common question for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the assessment made on the assessee in the status of an unregistered firm ?' 2. One Taharally Sarafally was a partner of M/s. Abbasbhoy Taharally & Company, having a one-third share therein. On his death on April 26, 1951, a fresh partnership deed was executed and Begum Sakina Bai, wife of Taharally Sarafally, was take in as a partner in place of her deceased husband and was also given her deceased husband's one-third share in the partnership. At the time of the death of Taharally Sarafally, he had also left behind him two sons and three daughters, besides his widow and a...
M. Seshadri Iyengar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Mad)337; [1985]152ITR734(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the assess, the following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 22,993 and notice pay of Rs. 3,204 ?' 2. The assessee was a firm carrying on business as dealers in timber and also exporters with headquarters of Madras and a retail depot in Madras itself and two branches at Cuddalore and Kallai. The firm decided to close down its business and entered into an agreement with its employees agreeing to pay them gratuity in a sum of Rs. 21,179, retrenchment compensation of Rs. 22,993 and notice pay of Rs. 3,204, totalling in all Rs. 43,376. The said amount was credited to the various employees' accounts and there was a corresponding debit entry in the profit and loss account for the assessment year 1973-74. The firm claimed the said amount of Rs. 43,376 as a deduction in the computation of its business income....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR542(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the interest eared by the assessee on investment of share capital in call deposits could not be assessed separately under the head 'Other sources' for the assessment year 1962-63 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company and for the assessment year 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer found that the paid-up share capital to the extent of Rs. 3,49,26,673 as on March 31, 1962, secured loan of Rs. 50,00,000 from the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and unsecured loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000 from the Export and Import Bank, Washington, which had been drawn fully in the previous year, were all invested in banks on call deposits and the assessee had received the following interest in the previous year : Rs....
C.V. Raman and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas126(Mad); (1984)IILLJ34Mad
Mohan, J.1. An important question arising in this batch of cases is whether the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Shops Act), is applicable to the Nationalised Banks and to the State Bank of India. 2. We would first note the facts leading to Writ Appeals Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983. They arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 2013 and 2014 of 1979. Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1979 is for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispense of the preliminary objection raised by the Management of the Bank of India, Regional Office, Southern Region, represented by the Assistant General Manger, Madras, in regard to the maintainability of T.S.E. Case No. 49 of 1875, of the file of the Second Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in the appeal preferred by the employee, C. V. Raman, under section 41 of the Act. 3. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 1979 is for prohibition to prohibit the Additional Commissioner from proceeding to take up for pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »