Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1948)2MLJ581
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our decision, on the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is as follows:Whether the total sum of Rs. 4,090 paid by the respondents in the year 1937-38 under the documents dated 1st March, 1935, 19th May, 1937, 25th February, 1937, and 2nd October, 1936, is allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act?The respondents are a registered firm carrying on business at Gudur. According to the statement of the case their business was, ' to win mica and sell it after refinement.' They entered into four agreements in writing, bearing the dates mentioned in the question, with persons who owned certain patta lands in Nellore district, and who had also obtained what are described as patta land agreements from the Government for mica mining. The four documents relate to different mines, namely, the Kubera mine, the Lakshminarasimha mine, and the Deepadurga mine. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ398
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The defendants, a Private Limited Company, have taken out this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of all proceedings in the suit. The suit is to recover Rs. 1,63,282-12 on the allegation that the said amount was payable in respect of the use of the plaintiff's vessel 's.s. Stavros,' as per charter party dated 17th May, 1968 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants at New York, United States of America. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs applied in Application No. 1523 of 1968 for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from removing their tanker from the Madras Harbour. Ismail, J., before whom that came up for orders, issued an interim injunction on 2nd August, 1968. The defendants took out Application No. 1564 of 1968 praying that the interim injunction may be vacated and that the bank guarantee of the First National City Bank, Madras, to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000, may be accepted. In view o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1959)2MLJ521
Ramaswami, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras, filed six charge-sheets against Sri Haji Mohammad Ismail Sahib, in regard to two tanneries Sri V.S. Raghavan, in regard to Revathi Studios, Sri M.H.M. Munas, in regard to Royal Studios, Sri Noor Kazi, in regard to Amco Studios and Sri K.S. Praksh Rao and Sri K. Venkatarama Ayyar, in regard to Prakash Studios, under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The complaints were taken on file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and numbered as C.C. Nos. 2396, 2397, 3545, 3546, 3547 and 3548 of 1958.2. In regard to the location of the factories and establishments and the address of the registered office, if any, in the City of Madras, and the addresses of the Offices of the principal employers in these cases, the following information is forthcoming:In C.C. No. 2396 of 1958, the factory concerned is Messrs. Haji Md. Ismail Saheb Tannery. It is situated in Ellamman Koil Street, Tiruvotriyur, Madras-19. The registered offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1392
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. This is petition to quash the proceedings in S. T. R. No. 307 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The complaint against the petitioner is for an offence under Section 85 (a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act 34 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act) read with Sections 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the said Act as amended upto date and Regulation 31 the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Regulations) for failure to pay combined contribution in respect of the employees' of the factory known as M/s. Siva Industries, Singanallur, Coimbatore-5 for the sets ended within the prescribed time limit. The prosecution case is, the accused which is the aforesaid company, had failed to pay the combined contribution within 21 days of the last day of the respective wage period as required under regulation 31 of the Regulations in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1963]50ITR809(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question of law, which is common in all the cases, that arises for decision in this batch of applications under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is :'Whether wealth-tax paid by a company is an allowable expenditure in the computation of its business income under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'We shall now state the facts in each case and set out the question referred :T.C. No. 91/1961. - The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of purchase and sale of electrical energy. It was assessed to wealth-tax under the Wealth-tax Act on March 31, 1959, and the tax of Rs. 9,594 was levied. This sum was claimed as a deduction by the assessee from its business income in respect of the assessment year 1959-60. The claim was negatived by the department as well as by the Tribunal. The question that is referred is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 9,594 representing the wealth-tax paid by the assessee was an allowable expenditure under the Income-tax Act ?'T.C. No. 92...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ389
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions a writ of mandamus is prayed for directing the Union of India (2nd respondent) to fix the price of stainless steel sheets at which the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (1st respondent) can sell to the petitioners as per the release orders already issued by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the writ petitions the lapsing of the sale notes issued in favour of the writ petitioners by the 1st respondent has been stayed. The common but general facts in all these writ petitions are as follows.2. The petitioners are manufacturers of hospital and surgical equipments and are small scale industrial units classified as actual users which is a common terminology used under the laws, rules and regulations governing import trade control and import licensing. The petitioners secured their last licence for the import of stainless steel sheets for the year 1969. For the financial year 1970-71, the import poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P(MD)No.16871 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in the Letter No. NPCIL/KKNPP/CTC/2016/S/936 dated 2.6.2016 wherein the Respondent have illegally and arbitrarily issued a corrigendum at clause 5 of the Annexure I barring the participation of Joint Venture Association (JVA) and quash the same and direct the Respondents to accept the bid of the Petitioner along with its Joint Venture Association (JVA) and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the bid of the petitioner along with its Joint Venture Association in subsidiary company, Afcons Infrastructure Limited for award of contract of construction of building at Koodankulam Phase III and IV. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.16872 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1960)1MLJ257
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the sustainability of a. demand for contribution from an employer under the Employees' State Insurance Act (Act XXXIV of 1948) which, for the sake of brevity, will be referred to hereafter as the Act. The respondent was the proprietor of Pakshiraja Studios in Coimbatore. The studio was engaged in the production of cinematograph films. A number of buildings constituted this 'Studios' all of them being situate in the same compound. The work in the studio was done in the following departments:(1) Electrical, (2) Camera, (3) Sound, (4) Setting, (5) Moulding, (6) Carpentry (7) Laboratory, (8) Editing, (9) Office and Watch and Ward, (10) Art and (11) Makeup. Electric power was utilised in connection with some of these items of the work in the studio. If all the departments were taken into account, the number of persons employed would admittedly exceed 20. But the same could not be said, if each of the departments was taken by itself....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1963]14STC788(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. This revision is against the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax on the disputed turnover of Rs. 46,741 - 40 representing the value of brass sheets and rings supplied to its customers for the assessment year 1957-58.2. The assessee is a firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of brass sheets and circles at Madras. For the year 1957-58 the assessee returned a gross turnover of Rs. 36,32,087-83 and a net turnover of Rs. 33,08,111-69. The Commercial Tax Officer, Assessment II, North Madras, determined the net turnover at Rs. 33,69,834-84. In determining the taxable turnover of the assessee, the Commercial Tax Officer accepted the contention of the assessee that the manufacturing charges realised by it on the order placed by third parties for conversion of a particular metal supplied by them into sheets of the same metal are not to be included in the taxable turnover. But a scrutiny of the conversion ledger mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1978]112ITR839(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The assessee is a firm carrying on business as contractors consisting of three partners, Sachidanandam, Nataraja Gounder and Mosa Gounder. On December 12, 1968, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, in the case of Sachidanandam under section 144 of the Act. In the said order the Income-tax Officer observed as follows :'On the basis of materials available, I estimate the assessees share income from the firm of Messrs. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation at Rs. 7,500.'The same Income-tax Officer had served a notice under section 139(2) on 18th July, 1968, on the assessee-firm. It did not file a return of income in pursuance of the said notice and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on January 4, 1969, estimating the income at Rs. 25,000 and showing the status as 'unregistered firm'. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Ass...
Tag this Judgment!