Chennai Court May 1984 Judgments
N.K. Ramiah Vs. the Yadava Kalvi Nithi a Registered Society and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad211
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed b3 one Dr. N. K. Ramiah seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Yadava Kalvi Nidhi a registered society, through its secretary, and the Secretary of the Yadava College Committee, Yadava College, Tiruppalai, Madurai, to appoint the petitioner as Member of the College Committee of the second respondent.2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition as mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, are as follows : The petitioner, who is a M.Sc.degree holder in Zoology and a Ph.D. degree holder in that subject, is a Senior Professor in the second respondent college. The said Yadava College is a private one established and run by the first respondent. The said college is affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University and is under the control and supervision of the Director of Collegiate education. The said college is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private 61l...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. G. Hanumantha Rao.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-19-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD850(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant Member -In this appeal by the revenue the issue involved is, whether the disallowance of publicity expenditure under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is justified or not. The connected issue is, whether in the case of the assessee section 37(3D) applied or not. The facts of the case lie in a small compass.2. The assessee was a partner of the firm, Padmalaya Pictures, Bangalore. That firm produced a picture by the name Patnavasam. After producing the firm the first was dissolved with effect from 28-2-1978. The assessee acquired the exploitation rights of the film as per dissolution deed dated 1-3-1978. During the accounting year ending on 31-3-1979 the assessee exploited the film through Sree Films, Vijayawada. The assessee claimed publicity expenses of Rs. 1,81,862. Applying the provisions of section 37(3A), the ITO disallowed Rs. 27,279. On appeal, the AAC was of the view that the assessees business was an indust...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Raheja Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD75(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal relates to the claim of the assessee for relief under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is an individual who sold his hose in 1/6, Ramanan Road, Madras-1, on 17-12-1975 for Rs. 1,50,000. He then purchased a flat in No. 401, B Block, Shivalaya, C-In-C Road, Madras-8, on 2-3-1976. Section 54 states that where the assessee sells a residential house being used by his mainly for the purpose of his own residence and purchased within a period of one yea a house property for the purpose of his won residence, then the amount reinvested may be deducted in computing the capital gains. Thus, there are three conditions prescribed in this section, namely (i) the house which is sold should have been used mainly for the purpose of the assessees own residence, (ii) the residential house should be purchased within a period of one year, and (iii) the purchase must be for the purpose of his own residence. The revenue does ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Wealth-tax Officer Vs. M. Ramaswamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1079(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri A. Krishnamurthy, Judicial Member - The appeal by the department relates to the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1975-76 of the assessee, Shri M. Ramaswamy. The objections raised by the department pertain to the determination of the value of certain shares held by the assessee in different companies. The company in which the assessee held shares, which were valued according to the method stated in rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, are Rukmani Mills Ltd., Pudukottai Co. (P.) Ltd. and Pudukottai Corpn. Ltd. The AAC found that there were certain amounts in the balance sheet shown as provision for bad debts which were deducted from the amounts shown under the head Unsecured loans as assets in the relevant balance sheets of the companies. He held that such provision for bad debts should be excluded or deducted in determining the net worth of the shares and not included as was done by the WTO. Aggrieved by his order, the department is in appeal.2. Before we proceed to de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›