Chennai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Pattabhiraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR786(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The question referred to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the property at No. 29, General Muthiah Mudali Street, Madras, was enjoyed by the four brothers as tenants-in-common, that each of the four co-owners should be assessed in respect of their share of capital gains and that the adoption of the status of 'body of individuals' in respect of the assessment of capital gains was not correct ?' 2. On hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that the question referred in this reference has to be answered against the Revenue in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Deghamwala Estates : [1980]121ITR684(Mad) . In that decision, this court has taken the view that the mere execution of a document of sale by two or more persons who are co-owners of the property cannot lead to the conclusion...
P.K.S. Mani Iyer, Managing Partner, Sri Shanmukham Talkies Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ31
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The petitioner is conducting cinematographic exhibition in Gandharvakottai in Pudukottai Dt. He objected to the issuance of 'No Objection certificate1 to respondents 4 arid 5 for locating a touring cinema in Survey No. 2/1 of Akkachupatti village, the third respondent, the licensing authority, overruled all the objections put forward by the petitioner and granted No Objection Certificate to respondents 4 and 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter to the CollectOrder The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, preferred a revision petition to the Government. The said revision petition, is still pending consideration, by the Government but then the Government dismissed the petitioner's application for stay of, the order passed by the appellate authority, pending his revision. It is the refusal on the part of the Governme...
Laila Begum Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC143
V. Ramaswami, J1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a number of grounds including the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In fact, the learned Counsel had thoroughly argued the matter and finished his arguments. In view of the fact that the relief could be granted on one of the grounds itself, without going into the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act, we are proceeding to dispose of the petition only on that short ground.2. The point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the detenu produced witnesses before the Advisory Board to be examined on the date of hearing, the Advisory Board refused to permit them to be examined on his side. In the affidavit dated 13-2-1986 sworn to by the detenu, it is stated that when the Advisory Board met on 4-2-1986, the detenu appeared before the Board alon...
Chairman and Managing Director, Sipcot, Madras Vs. Solvex Oil (Pvt.) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad284
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal District ~Judge, North Arcot at Vellore allowing an appeal filed by the respondent against an order of eviction on the ground that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation of the premises. 2. By order dt. 6-8-1976, the respondent was allotted a flat belonging to the Housing Board at Ranipat SIPCOT Industrial Complex . One of the conditions of the allotment order was condition No. 3 which required the allottee to pay 25 per cent of the tentative cost and the remaining 75 per cent was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 284-80 p. over a period of 15 years as well as monthly maintenance charges at Rs. 20/per month per flat. The condition is as follows :'............You have paid the 25% tentative cost of the flat. The remaining 75% of the tentative cost will be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 284.80 over a period of 15 years with interest at 12% per annum. Monthly maintenance charges at Rs. 201- per mon...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subbu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC467
Shanmukham, J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 5th day of March, 1986 and Thursday, the 6th day of March, 1986 and on this day, upon perusing the petition of Appeal the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. David of M/s Kurian and Associates, Advocates for the Appellant, and of Mr. S. Sadhasivarn for Mr. N. Nallappan, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 5 and the 6tb Respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court made the following Order:2. The insurance company challenges its liability under the Motor Vehicles Act to pay compensation to the victims who met with an accident, on the sole ground that the driver who drove the vehicle did not posess the requisite licence and that therefore there is a clear violation of the contract of insurance. This argument in turn depends upon the further contention that the trailers and tractor arc medium goods vehicles, as defined in Section 2(14) of the Mo...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.O. Angadi Veeriah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)386; [1987]167ITR341(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The question, which is referred to this court under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the bleaching of grey yarn amounts to processing work of an industrial undertaking, when the basic work of bleaching itself was done by others for cooly, within the meaning of the Explanation to section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957'. 2. It is necessary to point out that when the Tribunal was directed to refer the above question, this court also required the Tribunal to point out the extent of the work done by the assessee and work which it had got done by other agencies so as to enable the question be decided. When the Tribunal submitted the statement of the case, the Tribunal pointed out that the assessee was a partner in two firms, namely, M/s. Onni Chettiar and Sons and M/s. Ajantha Bleaching and Dyeing Works and that Messrs. Onni Ch...
Fathima Automobiles Vs. P.K.P. Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ216a
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The obstructor whose resistance to delivery of possession was ordered to be removed in M.P. No. 943 of 1980 in E.P.No. 762 of 1980 on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the petitioner.2. In the course of my order the petitioner in H.R.C.O.P will be referred to as the respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 therein as joint tenants or tenants, the 3rd respondent, as the sub-tenant, Dhanabagiammal as owner and the obstructor as the petitioner. The relevant facts to be noticed are, as follows: H.R.C.NO.986 of 1977 was instituted by the respondent for eviction of his joint tenants and his sub-tenant. The eviction was sought for on three grounds, particulars of which are not necessary. The application itself was presented on 14.3.1977. The joint tenants made an endorsement on 21.12.1977 to the effect that they vacated the petition premises on 30.9.1976. Learned Counsel for the respondent made an endorsement to the effect that the tenants had not de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Paper Mills Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR229(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate under section 33(1)(b) for the assessment years under review and that it should be carried forward to the subsequent years for allowance though no reserve was created by the assessee in the previous years as provided in section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that for the purpose of the allowance of development rebate under section 33, no reserve need be created by the assessee if the assessee did not have any assessable profits during the year of account is sustainable in law ?' 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts on which these questions have been framed in view of the fact that so far as this court is concerned, it...
Dollar Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Mad)121; [1986]161ITR455(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Its factory is admittedly situated on a piece of land of an extent of 7 grounds 310 sq. ft. which is covered by Tondiarpet, III Area, Town Planning Scheme. The Corporation of Madras made a demand on the assessee for payment of betterment contribution commonly called betterment tax of Rs. 2,406.09, Rs. 3,208.13 and Rs. 4,010-10 for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. The contribution was demanded at the rate of 7.5 per cent. on the difference between the value of the land as fixed by the Arbitrator, namely, Rs. 1,500 per ground and the market value taken for the above-mentioned three years, namely, Rs. 6,000, Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 9,000 per ground, respectively. On the assessee disputing the quantum of demand, the Corporation agreed to receive a lump sum payment of Rs. 7,984.67 on the basis of a flat rate of Rs. 1,120 per ground. This amount was accordingly paid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sankarapandia Asari and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR616(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred in T.C. Nos. 297 and 298 of 1978, at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 1,83,250 and Rs. 3,90,326 claimed by way of amortisation were proper deductions for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 ?' 2. There are also other questions which have been referred to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in T. C. Nos. 995 and 996 of 1980, arising out of the same order of the Tribunal. The questions are as follows : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had adopted the practice of writing off the value of the entire cost of the distribution rights of the film in the year of acquisition and valued the closing stock as 'nil' is based on the facts found in this case and is sustainable in law 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the method of writing off the cost of the distribution righ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »