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.
L.R. Rajendran Vs. Gajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad195A
ORDER1. The respondent in I.A. No. 65 of 1982 in O.P. No. 235 of 1981, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the petitioner herein. I.A. No. 65 of 1,982 in O.P. No. 235 of 1981 was filed by the respondent (wife) under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for directing the petitioner (husband) to pay to the respondent Rs. 1,200/towards legal expenses and Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance.2. The case of the respondent/wife is as follows She is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein, that the petitioner has preferred O.P. No. 235 of 1981 against the respondent herein seeking a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent herein filed a statement of objections and she is contesting the same. In the meanwhile, she has filed I.A. No. 65 of 1982 under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming Rs. 1,200/- towards legal expenses and Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance alleging that she has no property or income for her ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR596(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion 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 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct in condoning the delay in filing the appeal (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the levy under the Excess Profits Tax Act cannot be upheld ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of salt at Tuticorin from 1924. On February 6, 1944, the business was discontinued and some time later the firm itself was dissolved. The assessee filed its income-tax return for the assessment year 1944-45 corresponding to the accounting period from February 6, 1943, to February 6, 1944, disclosing an income of Rs. 65,012. For the corresponding chargeable acco...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Kumaraswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR252(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the minors could not be clubbed under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee herein for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T.C. No. 1231 of 1977 and this court by judgment dated February 4, 1983. (CIT v. S. Balasubramaniam : [1984]147ITR732(Mad) ) has held that the share income of the minors could be clubbed under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the hands of the assessee even if he represents the joint family in the firm and not in his individual capacity. The said decision has been followed in the decision in T.C. Nos. 458 to 461 of 1978 and 530 of 1978, dated September 28, 19...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii, Madras Vs. Chinna Oomen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR583(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,188 and Rs. 3,145 being the chit kasar received by the assessee from the Bank of Madurai Limited should be treated as casual and non-recurring in nature and that exemption under section 10(3) should be allowed' 2. The assessee is an individual, and for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the chit dividends of Rs. 2,188 and Rs. 3,145 respectively received by the assessee from the Bank of Madurai Limited were assessed under the head 'Other sources' by the ITO. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the assessment of these amounts. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal, after examining the bye-laws of the monthly chits of the Bank of Madurai Limited under which the chit dividends had been paid to the a...
Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tneb, Madras Vs. K. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ164Mad; (1984)2MLJ137
Mohan, J. 1. These two writ appeals are directed against the orders in W.P. Nos. 10089 and 10090 of 1983. The respondent in W.A. No. 244 of 1984 is K. Raman, Assistant Divisional Engineer in M.R.T. The respondent in W.A. No. 245 of 1984 is A. P. Ramasamy, Divisional Engineer in M.R.T. 'M.R.T.' is the abbreviation of Meter Relay Testing. 2. The short facts leading to the writ appeals are as follows :- A case of theft of electrical energy to the tune of Rs. 2,41,406/- at Messrs. Crystal Ice Factory, Guindy, Madras was noticed on 26th May, 1983. A complaint was lodged by the Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras with the police concerning this theft. The police initiated investigation. In the course of such investigation, meters with seals similar to those tested on 13th November, 1975, 11th November, 1975 and 12th March, 1976 were required by the police. That was with a view to cross-check with the seals concerned in the case of theft of energy. On 9th June, 19...
P.K. Subramani Vs. Paster Mani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad181
S. Natarajan, J.1. This petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for causing the production of a minor boy by name Amba Shankar alias Jayapaul has come to be filed on account of a gross and total misconnection of the circumstances under which a petition of this nature can be filed. The facts of the case are briefly as under.The petitioner is the father of a minor by name Jayapaul. He had entrusted the custody of the child as early as in the year 1978 to the first respondent herein who is running an institution known as 'Prayer House'. it is said to be an association registered under the Societies Registration Act and to be enaged in running an orphanage as well is maintaining a home for aged persons and for destitute widows. According to the first respondent., the petitioner informed him that after the ,death of his wife, he had married again and his second wife was averse to bringing up the minor child born to his first wife and therefore, the child may be taken care of in th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Kumaraswamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Mad)336
: Ramanujam, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the ITAT :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share income of the minors could not be clubbed under s. 64(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee herein for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ?'2. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T.C. No. 1231 of 1977 and this Court by judgment dt. 4-8-1983 has held that the share income of the minors could be clubbed under s. 64(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee even if he represents the joint family in the firm and not in his individual capacity. The said decision has also been followed in the decision in T.C. Nos. 458 to 461 of 1978 and 530 of 1978 dt. 28-9-1983 by another Division Bench Having regard to the said decision, the question in this case has to be answered in the negati...
Sakthi Charities Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)192; [1984]149ITR624(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-trust originally entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, of Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the absence of any power of revocation or modification except to the limit provided in clause XXX of the concerned trust deed in this case, the trustees have no power to revoke or modify any of the objects of the trust as originally constituted and, therefore, the deed of rectification is not valid or effective ?' 2. The assessee, Messrs. Sakthi Charities, was established under a trust deed dated June 25, 1968, declared by the founder and donor, Shri N. Mahalingam, by an initial donation of Rs. 5,000. According to the terms o...
The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-2 Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC95(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is M/s. Cheran Transport Corporation Limited. It was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pollachi East, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,07,426 for 1972-73 and by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore Rural, on a turnover of Rs. 11,06,061 for the year 1973-74. The assessments were questioned before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerned but without success. Thereafter the matter was taken on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee's main contention was that it is not a dealer and that the sales which were subjected to tax were not incidental or ancillary to the transport operations carried on by the assessee. It was not contended that their transactions were similar to those of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation which has been held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as not a dealer in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer [1971] 27 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›