Chennai Court November 1990 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. Ramakrishna Mills (Cbe) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR516(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this tax reference case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', read with section 18 of the Companies Profits Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount standing to the credit of the gratuity reserve account to the tune of Rs. 3,51,000 should not be treated as a provision, but should be treated as a 'reserve' and should, therefore, be taken into account while computing the capital of the assessee-company for surtax purposes ?' 2. For the year ending March 31, 1971, out of the profits for the year, the assessee transferred Rs. 2.51 lakhs to the gratuity reserve account. Likewise, from out of the profits for the year ending March 31, 1972, another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was trans...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aurofood Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Mad)279; [1991]187ITR715(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that a sum of Rs. 24,250 paid by the assessee-company to the Registrar of Companies, Rs. 120 paid towards filing fees and Rs. 14.40 towards stamp papers, should not be termed as capital in nature and that they should be allowed as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee would be entitled to the claim under section 80J for the assessment year, even though the factory commenced production only in the middle of the accounting ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74 (accounting period ending December 31, 1972), the ...
A. Madasamy Nadar Vs. A.J. Khaja Nazamudeen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1991)532MLJ1
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The 2nd respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1-981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthamapalayam, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioners 1 and 2 in the said R.C.O.P. are the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil revision petition. The first respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1981 is the third respondent herein. The third respondent in the R.C.O.P. is the fourth respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original petition.2. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1981 under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(vii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioners by inheritance. It was leased out by the father of the petitioners to one Serma Sami on a monthly rent of Rs. 23...
B.P. Agraharam Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., B.P. Agraharam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ479
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The first respondent was treasurer in the petitioner-co-operative bank from the year 1966 to 1972. One Dharmaraj was the paid-Secretary of the Co-operative Bank from 20.11.1968 to 19.11.1969. The petitioner, Co-operative bank is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. During an inspection under Section 66 of the Act, it was noticed that there was a deficiency in the assets of the Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,032.91. Surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 71 of the Act by the third respondent against the legal heirs of Dharmaraj who had passed away on 22.11.1969 and against the first respondent, treasurer. By an order dated 27.3.1975, the third respondent held that the first respondent as well as the heirs of the deceased Dharmaraj were liable for the said amount of Rs. 14,032.91. Two appeals were filed by the first respondent and the heirs of Dharmaraj before the Special Tribunal for co-operative cases. Both the appeals...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Voltas Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC177(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. These petitions involve identical questions and are preferred by the State against the orders of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Branch), Madras constituted under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In both the cases, the assessees-respondents have claimed that they were entitled to exemption on the ground that sales were effected in the course of import. The Tribunal, under separate orders has accepted their case in this regard. Since the only dispute is in regard to exemption of sales which are said to be in the course of the import we are not required to state the other facts although the impugned orders referred to them in some details and decided their respective disputes. 2. T.C. No. 79 of 1980 : The disputed turnover, according to the assessee, related to sales made to Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, under the import recommendation certificate issued by the purchasers for the specific purpose of importing the goods under their order. It is not in...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suguna Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC33(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Government of the State has moved this Court in revision on a determination by the Appellate Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, that a commodity called grinders once taxed when the assessee/respondent purchased without electrically operating motors, does not become a new commodity for sale when it is sold again with the electric motor joined to it as a new item of sale by the assessee/respondent. 2. When it was determined that the assessee was liable to pay tax on a total and taxable turnover at Rs. 23,50,956.84 and Rs. 3,53,861.60 as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 24,48,676.84 and Rs. 2,985.02, respectively by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee objected to the imposition of any tax on the sale of wet grinders attached with electric motors and also raised some other objections. The issue, however, as to the tax liability upon the sale of grinders under item 41-B of the First Schedule to the ...
Velathal and anr. Vs. R.K. Ponnusamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)50MLJ1
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These revisions are directed against the orders of the executing Court dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners for proceeding against the interest of the first respondent in the partnership firm by name M/s. Prabhu Motor Service. The second respondent is the other partner.2. The petitions are filed by the petitioners under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 49(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree is obtained against the first respondent in his individual capacity, but described as proprietor of Prabhu Motor Service. Learning that the first respondent is a partner of the firm, the decreeholders are trying to proceed against the interest of the first respondent in the partnership firm by taking proceedings under Order 21, Rule 49(2), C.P.C.3. The Court below has dismissed the petitions by relying on the Judgment of the Punjab High Court in Firm Balia Ram Raj Kumar v. Union of India A.I.R. 1952 Pun 340. The Court below has taken the view that Rule 49(2...
A.P.S. Bahurudeen and anr. Vs. Antony and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ563
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is an application for permission to withdraw the suit out of which the second appeal has arisen with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioners filed O.S. No. 392 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Manamadurai for declaration that the suit property is a wakf property and a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed in a representative capacity by the plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of Muslim residents of the village of Rajagopuram, Sivaganga Taluk, Ramnad District. Defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as representatives of the Christian community residents of the said village. The third defendant was the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The courts below negatived the claim of the petitioners and dismissed the suit. One of the grounds on which the suit has been dismissed is that the State Government is a necessar...
Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT297(Mad)
1. This writ petition has been referred for disposal to a Large Bench by the learned Single Judge and that is how the matter is before the Division Bench.2. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. It has taken out a licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company has been entering into agreements with M/s. India Tobacco Co. (hereinafter referred to as I.T.C.) for manufacturing cigarettes for it to be sold under the brand name of I.T.C. The petitioner filed a price list and claimed that the assessable value of the cigarettes was at Rs. 2.50 per 1000 claiming those to be conversion charges received from the I.T.C. and requested the authorities to treat the conversion charges only as the assessable value under Sec. 4 of the Act for payment of duty. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Hosur by his order dated 16-12-1982 did not agree and held that the value of the cigarettes had to be assessed on the basis of the value declared by I.T.C. in...
Madurai Metal Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC187; 1991LC466(Madras); 1991(52)ELT495(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 15770 to 15773 of 1990 is the appellants in these four writ appeals. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in the writ appeals. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. The petitioner challenged in the writ petitions this show cause notices under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Before the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petitions, two contentions were raised; one is that the show cause notices have clearly indicated closed mind and this vitiated them. The second is that the third respondent abdicated his powers by simply copying the notice issued by the second respondent under the Central Excise Act. The learned Single Judge found that the third respondent is not justified in drafting the impugned show cause notices in the manner in which they were done. However, the learned Single Judge opined that it would suffice the purpose, if direction is give...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »