Chennai Court March 1987 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. P. K. Leelavathi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: [1988]24ITD87(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT (Appeals) holding that the orders of penalty were ab initio void and also barred by limitation.2. The admitted facts are as follows. The assessment orders for the assessment years 1968-69, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 were made on 20-4-1977. The assessment orders for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 we made on 26-10-1977. These orders were set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax acting u/s. 263 by orders dated 18-4-1979 and 24-10-1979 respectively requiring the ITO to pass fresh orders of assessment. But no such fresh orders were passed by the ITO as the orders of the CIT were challenged on appeal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 26-6-1981 set aside the orders made u/s. 263 on the ground that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee and remitted the matter to the CIT for fresh disposal in accord...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ratnam Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: [1988]24ITD42(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member - This appeal arises out of the wealth-tax assessment of Shri R. Ratnam, the appellant herein, who is assessed in the status of a 'Smaller HUF'. The assessment year is 1984-85 for which the valuation date was 31-3-1984.2. We have heard Shri S. A. Balasubramaniam, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri G. Natarajan, the learned Departmental Representative, and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the authorities relied on by them.3. The first objection is to the inclusion of the Compulsory Deposit made by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,17,840 in his net wealth for this year. The WTO included the said amount of Compulsory Deposit as he was of the view that such amount was not exempt from wealth-tax. On appeal, the CWT (A) relied on the Compulsory Deposit Act which had been retrospectively amended with the introduction of section 7A with effect from 1-4-1975. He pointed out that as per the amended provisio...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Rep. by the Collector of Dharmapuri and anr. Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ128
Sengottuvelan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 24 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri, namely, the State of Madras, represented by the Collector, Salem and the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras, have filed the above second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in A.S. No. 128 of 1973.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows-Respondents 1 and 2 herein and two others filed the suit Q.S. No. 24 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif at Krishnagiri, for a declaration that the suit properties do not constitute a public charitable endowment within the meaning of Sections 3 and 6, Clause (5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 and for a consequential injunction restraining the second appellant from making an enquiry in respect of the suit properties and for other reliefs. The case of respondents 1 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Ulagammal Vs. the National Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC282
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal filed Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. 4 of 1939) by the petitioner Ulagammal, the appellant herein, against the award dated 21-4-1980 in M.O.P. No. 172/79 on the file of the Court of the learned II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu granting a compensation of Rs. 12,500/- with proportionate costs against the respondents and directing the first respondent to deposit the said amount within four months from the date of the award and also holding that if the amount was not deposited within six months, the appellant is entitled to 9 per cent interest from the date of the award till the date of deposit.2. The petition before the Tribunal was filed by the mother of the deceased Radhakrishnan praying the Tribunal to pass an award granting a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the death of the said Radhakrishnan in a motor vehicle accident on 8-12-1978 on G.S.T. Road caused by the car of the second respondent Ravindra Chander Chowdia be...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnasami Chetty and ors. Vs. the Licensing Officer, Deputy Trans ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)IIMLJ156
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondent, on the ground that the vehicles of the petitioners covered by All India tourist permits were found plying regularly as stage carriages, has called upon the petitioners to pay the tax for the concerned quarters. The petitioners have uniformly contended before the respondent and they equally contend before this Court that their vehicles had been hired to the Travel Agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and if the Agents collected individual fares from each of the passengers, the petitioners could not be made liable for the same. They also contended before the respondent and contend here also that the collection of separate fares is not prohibited under Section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, when it defines. 'contract carriage', and their vehicles plied between the two points without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of the routes passengers...
Tag this Judgment!Navarathna and Co. Vs. State (income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Mad)130; [1987]168ITR788(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The petitioner, a charted accountant, prosecuted along with an Income-tax assessee, on a complaint filed by the respondent, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in C. C. No. 151 of 1985 for offences under section 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 511, Indian Penal Code, and sections 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', invokes the inherent powers of this court to quash the same. 2. Facts briefly are :- One Adhimulam, a transport contractor, arrayed as the first accused (the petitioner being the second accused) and doing business in transport of oil, etc., from storage points and installations of Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation to various factories in and around Madras, filed on July 30, 1983, a return of income, along with profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the assessment year 1983-84. It is alleged that on October 27, 1983, a search for his busi...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Vino Kumar Didwania
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: [1992]198ITR750(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The Income-tax Department, which had filed a complaint against the respondent herein for offences under section 193 and 419 of India Peal Code, 1860, and section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and which had been taken on file by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Egmore, Madras, as C. C. No. 1286 of 1985, which complaint Procedure Code, on the ground that batta expenses for issuance of process to the respondent had not been paid, challenges the correctness of the above order in the present revision. 2. Since the matter has been disposed of by the trial court even before the accused had appeared, notice is not given to the respondent. In view of the decision of this court in Thiyagarajan v. Ayyamperumal [1983] L. W. 212, wherein the learned judge held that, in a revision against dismissal under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, notice to the accused need not be sent and the accused need not be heard. What would apply to a dis...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ranganathan Vs. Kavari Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ152
S.A. Kader, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in O.S. No. 293 of 1975. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.2. This is a suit on two promissory notes. The case of the plaintiff briefly is as follows : One Selvaral was employed under the plaintiff in his proprietary concern Lakshmi Paper Industries. The said Selvaraj died in an air crash and the defendants are his heirs and legal representatives. The first defendant is the mother, 2nd defendant is his wife and defendants 3 and 4 are his children. According to the plaintiff, the said Selvaraj constructed a house and for the said purpose he overdrew large sums of money from the partnership firm Interpack Industries of which he was one of the partners. As other partners insisted upon the repayment, the said Selvaraj borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the plaintiff on 30.5.1972 and executed a promissory note therefor promising to repay the principal with interest thereon ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Mohammed Habhee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ413
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram in O.S. No. 92 of 1977. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. This is a suit on a mortgage for sale of the mortgage property and for a personal decree against the defendants. The plaintiff, which is the State Bank of India, Nagercoil Branch, granted to the 1st defendant who is a small scale manufacturer of handloom textiles a cash credit special hypothecation advance up to a limit of Rs. 15,000 on 4.10.1973. The 1st defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the 2nd defendant guarantor for a sum of Rs. 15,000 agreeing to repay the sum with interest at one per cent below the State Bank of India advance rate with a minimum of eight per cent per annum with monthly rests. The 2nd defendant endorsed the said promissory note in favour of the plaintiffand offered the same as collateral security. The 1st defendant executed an agreement hypothecating the goods, machinery, boo...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthiah Vs. Tirunelveli Municipal Council, by Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ384
Sengottuvelan, J.1. The point of law that arises for determination in the second appeal is whether the obligation on the part of the owner of a building to give notice to the Municipal Council about the completion or occupation of the building under Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu Districts Municipalities Act, 1920 is a sine quo non to enable the owner to get the remission contemplated under Section 89.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:-The appellant constructed the buildings bearing door Nos. 51/B, 51/C, 51/D, 51/E, 51/F, 51/G and 51/H on Salai Street, Sinthupunthurai, Tirunelveli Junction. According to the appellant, the constructions were completed in the month of April, 1975 and the buildings were not occupied before April, 1975 and hence, according to Section 89 of the Act, the building cannot be assessed to property tax for the half year ending 31.3.1975. The further case of the appellant is that since the Municipality did not serve any special notice on the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »