Chennai Court December 1990 Judgments
Smt. Devi Bai Purushothamdas Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]39ITD140(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan (Judicial Member) - This appeal is directed against the enhancement of the value of investment shown by the assessee.2. The assessee is an individual. As on the valuation date 18-5-1981 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83 she showed in her net wealth her interest in a firm M/s Jaisingh Investments at Rs. 1,99,643. This amount represented her share of the capital on the closure of the books of the firm on 10-5-1981. The firm had been commenced with effect from 21-4-1980 and evidenced by a document dated 21-5-1980 executed by the assessee and five other parties. The firm was carrying on money-lending business. On 21-4-1980 the assessee gave her flat in Bombay to the firm as her capital contribution. On 4-12-1980 the firm sold the flat for Rs. 2,35,000. In the income-tax proceedings of the assessee it was held that the firm should be ignored and the assessee taken to have sold the flat directly so that capital gains was to be assessed in the hand...
Tag this Judgment!Vispro Foundry Engineers Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC169(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner herein has moved this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the respondent in R.C. No. 11242 dated December 25, 1989 and for a consequential direction to reconsider its application dated December 18, 1989, presented before him under the rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, read with section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. The petitioner who is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cast iron and rough castings, was subjected to assessment of taxes under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1987-88 and accordingly a demand for Rs. 1,30,899 was made on May 16, 1989, by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle, Madras. When the petitioner was served with the recovery notice and realised that it was assessed as above, it presented an application on December 18, 1989, stating t...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Kempt (1) Ltd. (Represented by Kempt Employees Union, Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ913Mad
Anand, J. 1. The ambit and scope of Section 25-O(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), is the pivotal question requiring determination at our hands in this writ appeal which is directed against the judgment of a learned Single judge in writ Petition No. 15835 of 1990, decided on 25 October 1990. The circumstances under which the question arises for our determination need a brief notice at the threshold. 2. The workmen of Kempf (India), Ltd, through their union, were the petitioners in the writ petition. For convenience sake, we shall refer to them as the workmen; the second respondent in the writ petition was the management of Kempf (India), Ltd., represented by its Managing Director and for convenience sake, we shall refer to it as the management; the third respondent in the writ petition is another union of workers, which was represented by its secretary, and we shall refer to it as the workers' union, in this judgment. 3. The management industry was e...
Tag this Judgment!1 M Kalyansundaram (F. P. A. No. 17 (Mad) of 1990) 2. Sethuraman (F. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR35(Mad)
ORDERThis order will dispose of two connected appeals M. Kalyanasundaram v. Competent Authority, Madras 9FPA No. 17 (Mad) of 1990) and Sethuraman V. Competent Authority, Madras (FPA No. 24 (Mad) of 1990) which are directed against the same order of the Competent Authority, Madras, dated February 16, 1990.Kalyanasundaram, the appellant in Appeal No. 17 (Mad) of 1990, was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and as such is an affected person in terms of section 2(2) (b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, (hereafter the 'Act'). A notice under section 6(1) of the Act dated August 29, 1979, was issued to him in relation to the following items of property directing him to indicate the source of his income, earnings or assets by means of which he had acquired the same :(1) Survey No. 104/1 and 2-Keezhakadu Village (Keeladu Village) (84 cents) (wet lands) purchased on May 14, 19...
Tag this Judgment!S. Periannan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Mad)128; [1991]191ITR278(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. In these tax cases, at the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is refereed to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property 'Grove Estate' belongs to the assessee-Hindu undivided family and, consequently, the income arising therefrom should be considered as the income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which the karta is S. Periannan. The said Periannan is the son of one Sathappa Chettiar. On April 13, 1955, there was a partition in the Hindu undivided family of Sathappa Chettiar and his sons, Narayanan and Periannan. At that time, his sons Narayanan and Periannan were both minors, aged 12 and 1, respectively. An application was made on September 14, 1955, for the recognition of the partition under section 25A of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jithendra Lottery Agency and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)IIMLJ595
Govindasamy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitioners have been carrying on business as organising agents for lotteries on behalf of various State lotteries. The petitioners have experience in organising lotteries and used to distribute lottery tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in India. The Tamil Nadu Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 59 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', issued a Notification G.O. P. No. 77 dated January 28, 1984, inserting an entry 163 in the First Schedule to the Act, whereby the sale of lottery tickets was brought within the purview of the levy of sales tax. In pursuance thereof, the tax was levied on the sale of lottery tickets at the point of first sale in the State. The said notification was later replaced by a legislative enactment, viz., the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1984. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2062 of 1985 has challenged the levy before the Supreme Court and the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Jithendra Lottery Agency Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ595
Govindasamy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have been carrying on business as organising Agents for lotteries on behalf of various State Lotteries. The petitioners have experience in organising lotteries and used to distribute lottery tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in India. The Tamil Nadu Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', issued a Notification G.O.P. No. 77, dated 28.1.1984 inserting an Entry 163 in the First Schedule to the Act, whereby the sale of lottery tickets was brought within the purview of the levy of sales tax. In pursuance thereof, the tax was levied on the sale of lottery tickets at the point of first sale in the State. The said Notification was later replaced by a Legislative enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1984. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2062 of 1985 has challenged the levy before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by it...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Vs. Basavalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad274; (1991)IMLJ307
ORDER1. The order of the Court below imposing a condition of furnishing security for grant of leave to defend the suit is not sustainable. The learned Judge has overlook-ed the provisions or Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code. He has obviously forgotten that the question to be decided for an application for leave to defend is whether there is a triable issue in the suit or whether the claim made by the defendant is a moonshine. The learned Judge without taking into account any of the relevant circumstances has granted leave on condition that the petitioner should furnish security for the amount claimed in the suit on or before a particular date.2. The order deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Messrs. Machelee Engineering and Manufacturers v. Messrs. Basic Equipment Corporation, : [1977]1SCR1060 . The Supreme Court set out the following principles to be followed while considering the grant of leave to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Marimuthu Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2126
1. The accused in S.T.C. No. 45 of 1985 on the file of the learned Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Madurai is the appellant. He was charged for offences punishable u/Ss. 3(1)(2) and 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks and Prices and Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1977 read with S. 7(i)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. P.W. 4, Marudayya was the Inspector of Police, Crimes, Civil Supplies, Madurai South on 17-7-1985 he inspected the shops and found the accused running business under the name and style of 'Raja Biscuits Company' at door No. 115, Netaji Road, Madurai. He was having a licence R.C. No. 400208 and he was selling bread. P.W. 4 found that there was no board showing the stock and also showing the price list of the commodities. P.W. 4 prepared a mahazar, Ex. P1 and he got attention by P.W. 1. Then he served a copy of Ex. P1 on the accused and went to the police station and registered a case in Cr. No. 1780/85 u/S. 3(1)(2) read with...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.K. Devarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)184; [1991]191ITR211(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, on sale of agricultural lands, it was assessed to capital gains on a sum of Rs. 2,99,500 which, on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, was reduced to Rs. 1,30,500. On a petition filed by the assessee that it had purchased agricultural lands within two years from the date of sale, the Income-tax Officer allowed exemption from capital gains under section 54B(ii) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the basis of an audit objection that exemption under section 54B(ii) of the Act is available only to individual assesses and not to a Hindu undivided family, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act and the exemption granted under section 54B(ii) of the Act was withdrawn. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kashturbhai La...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »