Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]147ITR590(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J. 1. These references have been made on the application of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', in R.A. Nos. 1315 to 1317 of 1972-73, under s. 256(1) arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 2629 to 2631 of 1972-73, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law, in holding that the premia paid by the assessee's wife out of her income, included in terms of section 64(1)(iv) in the hands to the assessee, should be treated as having been paid by the assessee and the deduction in terms of section 80C allowed thereon ?' 2. The assessee is an individual during the relevant accounting period. The assessee had made a gift of Rs. 1,02,000 in favour of his wife, Mr. V. S. C.Saraswathi Ammal, prior to the commencement of the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68. The am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad274; 1959CriLJ852
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, has convicted the appellant under Section 363. I. P. C., read with Section 109 I. P. C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The case for the prosecution, so far as it is now material may be summarised extremely briefly. One Kolandaiappa Goundar of Narasapuram village had incurred the enmity of a number of his castemen in his village. So he left Narasapuram and took up residence in the house of his sister, Devakkal, P. W. 23, in Gandhipuram. But his enemies were resolved to take his life. So they arranged that he should be persuaded to attend' a late cinema show so that on his way back he could be murdered at some suitable spot. For some reason or other two such schemes miscarried.3. Sometime in the evening of 26-8-1956, the deceased went to inspect a plot of land which he intended to purchase. One Nanjappa accompanied the deceased. Immediately before he set out in company with the deceased, Nanjappa asked ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad334
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In these Letters Patent Appeals, the question which hits arisen for consideration relates to the scope of the contingency under which and the conditions on satisfaction of which the powers of court to be exercised under O. XXXIV R. 5 of the Civil P. C. hereinafter referred to as the Code. To assess the question raised and to express an opinion thereon. it has become necessary to trace the facts of the case. We are obliged to refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in CMP 16300 of 1982 in CMA 532 of : AIR1984Mad27 against the orders in which these Letters Patent Appeals has been preferred, which array is more or less similar in the civil miscellaneous appeal itself. In 1903 two items of properties were the subject matter of mortgage by Narayana Raja the petitioner to and in favour of one Meyyappa Chettiar. who is no more. Ranganayaki Achi the first respondent, who died subsequently, and Sevugan Chettiar, the second respondent. were countenanced as the legal repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1962Mad96; [1962]44ITR66(Mad)
(1) In W. P. No. 957 of 1958, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of prohobition prohibiting the Gift Tax Officer form enforcing a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the prescribed return under the Act. In W. P. No. 217 of 1960, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing an order of assessment made by the Gift Tax Officer. Since the same question of the proper construction of the provisions of the Act is raised in the two petitions, they are dealt with together. The facts relating to each case are however different and they will be set out briefly.(2) The petitioner in the first of these writs had made five gifts, four of which were of either Rs. 10,000, or below and one of Rs. 20,000. By a notice dated 30th October 1958, the Gift Tax Officer called upon the petitioner to submit a return for the assessment year 1958-59. In the form of return which was enclosed to the notice, the petitioner was required to aggregate t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad70
Raghavan, J.1. The above two appeals are preferred by the first and second defendants against the decree in C. S. No. 43 of 1962. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there can be a contract of honour or what is familiarly known as a gentleman's agreement which is not enforceable in a court of law based on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Rose and Frank Co. v. J. R. Crompton and Bros. Ltd., 1924 All ER 245.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs are father and son and the defendants are wife and husband. The first plaintiff, the father, is the owner of 3 items of properties described in Schedules A and B to the plaint which among others were bequeathed to him by his adoptive father late S. V. Ramaswami Mudaliar subject to other dispositions under his last will and testament dated 10-9-1937 which was duly probated. The A Schedule property consists of (1) House and ground bearing door No. 46 in Rattan Bazar Road and (2) Hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1975]98ITR24(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a 'resident but not ordinarily resident' person. He carried on business in real properties in Penang. In the previous year ending on December 31, 1957, he sold two rubber estates for $ 14,89,980 as against his actual cost of $ 13,00,000, leaving a gross surplus of $ 1,89,980. He had made the following remittances to the taxable territories during the year :DateAmountRs.27-4-195715,470.25 3-5-195715,029.7512-5-195715,000.0012-6-195715,000.0025-6-195715,400.0014-8-1957 500.0016-9-195730,950.0018-9-1957 8,625.001,62,400.00 or$ 1,04,7742. The assesses contended that the above remittances were not taxable, as they were not remitted out of profits and that the profit on sales of the estates could be ascertained only when all the estates purchased by him had been completely sold. The Income-tax Officer rejected these contentions holding that there was actually a surplus of $ 1,43,754 by the sale of the two rubber estates after setting off of $ 46,226, the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad873; [1954]24CompCas323(Mad)
1. This is a reference by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Rule 17, Schedule IV (Taxation Rules) of the Madras City Municipal Act. The only question in this case is whether the South India Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., Madras, is liable to pay the tax on companies to the Corporation of Madras. The learned Chief Judge has held that it is not and has set aside the assessment made on it. Under Section 110, Madras City Municipal Act, every company which transacts business within the City in any half year for not less than sixty days in the aggregate shall pay a half yearly tax assessed in accordance with the rules in Schedule IV, but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand. "Company" is defined in Section 3(9-A) thus: " 'Company' means a company as defined in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or formed in pur-suance of an Act of Parliament or of Royal Charter or Letters Patent, or of an Act of the Legislature of a British Possession, or of a law of an India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(52)ECC53; 2003(162)ELT121(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem . (for short 'Company') - respondent (in all Writ Appeals - petitioner) is situate at 13/239, Main Road, Mettupalayam-1. The company, it is said, is a manufacturer of synthetic gem. It imported silica crucibles under valid licence from France and filed five bills of entries, namely, (1) D.1211, dated 28-4-1982; (2) D.1212, dated 22-3-1980; (3) D. 262, dated 5-7-1982; (4) D.1105, dated 19-12-1980; and (5) D.1106, dated 19-12-1980.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods and levied additional or countervailing duty under Customs Tariff Heading 70.21 and under item 23-A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (for short 'CET'). The consignment had been cleared on payment of duty, as demanded.3. Even though the items imported were silica crucibles, the Assistant Collector of Customs classified the goods for assessing duty under the Heading No. 70.21, which related to 'other articles of glass', in view of Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 17, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to issue a necessary notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced in Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 in the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the State of Tamil Nadu to issue notification in the Government Gazette to notify the amendment introduced vide Bill No.7 of 2011 dated 10.02.2011 by the Legislative Assembly under the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and pass such other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner along with her sons purchased land measuring 14.23.50 Hectares in S.No.785/1C1G (2.23.0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad97; (1953)2MLJ405
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottah allowing an application by the judgment-debtors under Sections 47 and 151, Civil P. C. and holding that they were not liable to' pay interest of Rs. 2846-11-0 for the period 8-12-941 to31-3-1947 by virtue of the Accrual of Interest War time Adjustment Act (Burma Act 11 of 1947). The suit was one for recovery of monies deposited with the defendants in Burma admittedly many years ago. Section 3 of the Burma Act 11 of 1947 runs as follows:'Notwithstanding: anything contained in any other law for the time being in, force, or in any contract of loan or mortgage deed, no interest shall accrue, or be payable, upon any loan or mortgage other than usufructuary mortgage made in Burma before the 5th day of May 1942 for or in respect of the period which falls within the 8th day of December 1941 and the date on which the provisions of Section 7 of the, Courts '(Emergency Provisi...
Tag this Judgment!