Chennai Court January 1986 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.
S. Sundaram and anr. Vs. Damodaraswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad15
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their pre-emption right and for recovery of possession of the plaint properties. The averments in the plaint are as follows - The plaintiffs are brothers and the second defendant is their sister. One Valliammal is the mother of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The family owned considerable properties and a written partition took place on 17-2-1960. The sharers agreed therein that even after the partition, the sharers should not sell their shares to outsiders and a condition was laid in the partition deed that in the event of any alienation by any of the sharers, preference should be given to the other sharers to purchase the same.2. The mother of the plaintiffs and the second defendant, viz, Valliammal was allotted certain properties in the partition deed and she has gifted her share of the properties to her only daughter, the second defendant herein, under a deed dt. 14-9-1972. Now, it transpires that...
S. Sundaram and anr. Vs. R. Damodaraswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ203
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their pre-emption right and for recovery of possession of the plaint properties, The averments in the plaint are as follows, The plaintiffs are brothers and the second defendant is their sister. One Valliammal is the mother of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The family owned considerable properties and a written partition took place on 57th February, I960. The sharers agreed therein that even after the partition, the sharers should not sell their shares to outsiders and a condition was laid in the partition deed that in the event of any alienation by any of the sharers, preference should be given to the other sharers to purchase the same.2. The mother of the plaintiffs and the second defendant, viz., Valliammal was allotted certain properties in the partition deed and she has gifted her share of the properties to her only daughter, the second defendant herein, under a deed, dated 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Mad)319; [1987]164ITR707(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two questions which are the subject-matter of these two references, one under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (T.C. No. 186 of 1979) and the other under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (T.C. No. 141 of 1978) arise out of the same set of facts. One Sri Ranga Konar, who was the paternal grandfather of the assessee, executed a will of his property on September 11, 1930, by which he bequeathed his property to five of his sons. After the death of Sri Ranga Konar, the five sons, experiencing some difficulty in partitioning the property according to the will, decided to ignore the will and effected a partition by a duly drawn up partition deed dated December 3, 1934. As a result of the partition, Chinna Venkatachala Konar, one of the sons of the deceased, Sri Ranga Konar, received some property in respect of which he executed a will on March 11, 1938, bequeathing his property to his wife and daughter, Smt. Ponnammal, the assessee. Chinna Venkatac...
N. Sastha and ors. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR216(Mad)
1. One S. Nelliappan died on July 18, 1961. In the course of assessment proceedings under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty found that the deceased, who was carrying on motor transport business, has transferred that business to M/s. Pioneer (P.) Ltd. in 1946. In consideration of the transfer, the deceased was allotted 4,000 shares in the said company and his son, Sastha, was allotted 1,000 shares. The three accounting years previous to the death of Nelliappan ended on August 15, 1958, August 15, 1959, and August 15, 1960. the deceased had received an amount to Rs. 10,000 on August 15, 1958, as dividend from M/s. Pioneer Motors (P.) Ltd. Admittedly, this dividend was payable in respect of the year ending on August 15, 1958. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the business which was transferred to M/s. Pioneer Motors (P.) Ltd. did not belong to the deceased in his individual capacity, but only to the Hindu undivided family of the deceased and his son...
M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)56; [1986]160ITR213(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1974-75, the gross total income of the assessee company which is an investment company in terms of section 109(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was computed at Rs. 5,27,283. Deducting the tax payable, the distributable income came to Rs. 2,64,216. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the declared dividend was less than the prescribed percentage, the dividend declared being Rs. 1,17,912. He, therefore, levied additional income-tax at 50% of Rs. 1,46,304, the additional tax coming to Rs. 73,152. 2. Admittedly, the profit and loss account which the Tribunal examined for the year ending December 31, 1974, as also the 23rd annual report and the statement of account for the year ending March 31, 1974, showed a profit of Rs. 10,33,029.30 out of which the profits from the sale of the house properties alone amounted to Rs. 7,16,138.57. 3. The contention raised before the Income-tax Officer as well as the appellate authority and the Tribunal o...
N. Bhagavathy Ammal and ors. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)351; [1986]162ITR190(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. All these tax cases arise out of proceedings for determination of estate duty in respect of the estate of the deceased, Kumaraswami. It would be enough to refer to only such of the relevant facts which are material for the decision of the eight questions which have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for opinion. One Sastha, the deceased, had three sons, S. Kumaraswami, S. Nelliappan and S. Nagamani. After the death of Sastha, there was a partition among the three brothers on August 17, 1943. Kumaraswami's wife died in 1954. At the time of death of Kumaraswami which took place on October 18, 1960, the family consisted of Kumaraswami and his four daughters. In 1957, the deceased, Kumaraswami, gifted portions of his house to his four daughters. Three of his daughters had been married and Rajammal, the fourth daughter, was unmarried. 2. The deceased with his two brothers had sold large extent of rubber gardens and cocoanut thopes to Messrs. ...
Sree Annapoorna and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC18(Mad)
1. The appellants in the writ appeals are two hoteliers, one known as Sree Annapoorna and the other known as Sree Gowrisankar. All the tax cases have been filed by the department against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore. The assessees in these tax cases are the two writ appellants above referred to. The assessment years relating to these tax cases and the writ appeals are 1973-74, 1974-75 and the period from 1st April, 1975, to 31st May, 1975, in 1975-76. The appellants in the writ appeals as also the respondents in the tax cases will hereafter be referred to as the assessees.2. The assessees are running restaurants in Coimbatore. They were supplying food and drinks inside their restaurant premises to the customers providing seating facilities and other facilities like fan, light, music, etc. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, assessed these transactions as sales in his orders dated 21st November, 1974, 28th August, 1975, and 7th August, 1975, for t...
indotex Machinery Works Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: 1987(28)ELT265(Mad)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-firm has( moved this court for appropriate writs, orders and directions for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated March 4, 1985 and July 15, 1985 passed by the third respondent-tribunal and for direction to the tribunal to dispense with the deposit of the excise duty of Rs. 2,02,116.49 Ps. during the pendency of the appeal.2. The question involved in this petition is whether the value of the articles purchased and supplied by the petitioner to its customers along with other machinery parts manufactured by the petitioner should or should not be included in the value of products sold for purposes of the excise duty under tariff item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as no processing or manufacturing activity, not even assembling, was done by the petitioner on such bought out articles and they were supplied to the customers in the same form in which they were purchased by the petitioner, and therefore, did not...
Ponnurangam Vs. Chairman, Slum Clearance Board of Tamil Nadu, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1996Mad274; (1996)IMLJ347
1. The second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5167 of 1977, on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that he is not liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the basis of the notice issued by the respondent Slum Clearance Board of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chairman. 3. It is averred in the, plaint that the plaintiff had been occupying the scheduled premises from the year 1963, and thereafter, on the application filed by him, the same was assigned in his favour. He is also paying the hire purchase instalments regularly. It is said that the defendant issued a notice on 17-11-1976 stating that he had obtained the allotment by making false representations and that he has got other buildings of his own which disentitles him from getting any allotment. Since the allotment was obtained fraudulently, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. It is also averred that when the plainl iff is...
Balaraman Vs. Varadammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ238
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The petitioner is one of the sons of the judgment-debtor (1st respondent in E.P.No. 643 of 1984, X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) and 3rd respondent in that execution petition. The respondent decree holder obtained a decree for maintenance in O.S.No. 7927 of 1976 against her husband, Narayanan. The decree also provided a charge over the property No. 91, Venkatarangam Pillai Street, Triplicane, Madras. The said execution was laid against the legal representatives of her husband, viz.. his three sons and a daughter, as the judgment debtor passed away in the meanwhile. The amount claimed is Rs. 18,384.10 after giving credit to the payment of Rs. 20,300. In the execution a sum of Rs. 36,000 standing to the credit of the judgment-debtor and his son, the petitioner, in Punjab National Bank, Triplicane, Madras was sought to be attached by issue of a prohibitory order to the bank. All the petitioner's objections were rejected by the Court below and execution wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »