Chennai Court April 1921 Judgments
Jagana Sanyasiah and ors. Vs. Mycherla Peda Atchanna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad624; (1922)42MLJ339
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants 3, 4, 13 and 14 are the appellants. The facts are somewhat complicated and in setting them out 1 shall for the sake of brevity describe the parties to old transactions who are the ancestors of some of the parties to the suit as if they were themselves parties to the suit. There was first a usufructuary mortgage of items 1 to 8 by defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiff. Next there were five usufructuary mortgages under Ex. I to V executed in the years between 1880 and 1883 in favour of Srinadhu Appadu of items 9 to 16, the total sum due under these five usufructuary mortgages being Rs. 3,200. Next there was a simple mortgage (Ex. A) in January 1886 for Rs. 4,000 made up of three items :--(1) Rs. 3,010 due under a simple debt bond of 1879 (Ex. A-3,), (2) Rs. 590 due under a promissory note and (3) Rs. 400 paid in cash. It is on this bond Ex. A that the present suit for sale of the plaint properties items 1 to 16 is brought.2. The equity of redemption in half,...
Tag this Judgment!Jagna Sanyasiah and ors. Vs. Mycherla Peda Atchanna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.759
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3, 4, 13 and 14 are the appellants. The facts are somewhat complicated and in setting them out I shall, for the sake of brevity, describe the parties to old transactions, who are the ancestors of some of the parties to the, suit as if they were themselves parties to the suit. There was, first, a usufructuary mortgage of items Nos. 1 to 8 by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff. Next, there were five usufructuary mortgages under Exhibits I to V executed in the years between 1880 and 1883 in favour of Srinodhu Appadu of items Nos. 9 to 16, the total sum due under these five usufructuary mortgages being Rs. 3,2000. Next, there was a simple mortgage (Exhibit A) in January 1886 for Rs. 6,000 made up of three items: (1) Rs. 3010 due under a simple debt bond of 1879 (Exhibit A-3); (2) Rs. 590 due under a promissory-note, and (3) Rs. 400 paid in case. It is on this last bond (Exhibit A) that the present suit for sale of the plaint properties, items Nos....
Tag this Judgment!R. M. M. S. T. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. M. L. M. Rama Nathan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.808
1. Following Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga. Prasada Nayudu v. Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada Nayudu (1), which we cannot regard as overruled by the reference to it obiter in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (2), we hold that the appeal does not lie and dismiss it with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner and Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad228; (1921)41MLJ189
1. The question referred to us is whether the Excess Profits Duty Act, 1919 requires the duty to be assessed within the year from the 1st April 1919 to 31st March 1920 for which the duty is imposed. A comparison of the Act with the earlier Income-tax Acts makes it quite clear that this was not the intention of the Legislature. It is expressly provided in Section 4 of the Indian income-tax Act, 1886 Section 3 of the Super Tax Act 1917, and Section 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1918 that the tax under each of these Acts shall be paid or collected in the year for which it is imposed and this necessarily implies that the assessment must also be within one year. Consequently under the Acts of 1886 and 1917, income which escaped assessment within the year went free, but in Section 25 of the Act of 1918 it was for the first time provided that in cases governed by that Act, it might 6e assessed in the following year, and the Super Tax Act 1917 has recently been amended to the same effect. On the o...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Pillai Vs. Dasai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)41MLJ423
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The assignee-decree-holder is the appellant. The following are the relevant facts and dates. On 20-9-1912 the final decree for sale of the hypothecated properties was passed. Item's 4 and 5 of the hypothecated properties were afterwards acquired by the Government under. the Land Acquisition Act and Rs. 3400 (Compensation money) was deposited in court for the Government on 11-8-1914, to the credit of the suit. The decree amount with interest on that date amounted to Rs. 3926-0-0 according to the degree-holder. The decree holder drew the compensation amount of Rs. 3400 from the court on 11-8-1914 and he filed the present execution application for sale of two other hypothecated items on 10-8-1917. The questions for consideration are (I) whether the execution petition is barred by limitation and (2) what was the balance due under the decree, whether it was Rs. 500 and odd with interest from 11-8-1914 as claimed by the decree-holder or lesser sum and if so, what sum?2. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A.R.N. Ramanathan Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad768
1. The question referred to us is whether the Excess Profits Duty Act, 1919, requires the duty to be assessed within the year from the 1st April 19J 9 to 31st March 1920 for which the duty is imposed. A comparison of the Act with the earlier Income-tax Acts makes it quite clear that this was not the intention of the legislature. It is expressly provided in Section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1886, Section 8 of the Super-tax Act, 1917, and Section 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1918, that the tax under each of these Acts shall be paid or collected in the year for which it is imposed and this necessarily implies that the assessment must also be within the year. Consequently under the Acts of 1886 and 1917, income which escaped assessment within the year went free, but in Section 25 of the Act of 1918 it was for the first time provided that in cases governed by that Act it might be assessed in the following year, and the Super-tax Act, 1917, has recently been amended to the same effect. On...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhanjee Ramjee and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad773
1. The question which the. Board was directed to refer is whether in the circumstances, the Collector of Malabar had jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. Now the income which is taxable under the Act is, as provided in Section 3,All income from whatsoever source it is derived if it accrues or arises or is received in British India or is under the provisions of this Act, deemed to accrue or arise or to be received in British India.2. And under Section 33(1), in the case of any person residing out of British India:All profits or gains accruing or arising to such person whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connexion in British India shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising in British India.and is consequently taxable under the express provisions of Section 3. It makes no difference with regard to this section whether the non-resident entitled to the income is a British subject or a foreigner; in either case he is chargeable with the tax in British India. I...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Pillai Vs. Dasai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad971; 68Ind.Cas.100
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The assignee-decree-holder is the appellant. The following are the relevant facts and dates: On 20th September 1912 the final decree for sale of the hypothecated properties was passed. Items 4 and 5 of the hypothecated properties were afterwards acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act and Rs. 3,400 (compensation money) was deposited in Court for the Government on 11th August 1914 to the credit of the suit. The decree amount with interest on that date amounted to Rs. 3,926 according to the decree-holder. The decree-holder drew the compensation amount of Rs. 3,400 from the Court on 11th August 1914 and he filed the present execution application for sale of two other hypothecated items on 10th August 1917. The questions for consideration are (1) whether the execution petition is barred by limitation and (2) what was the balance due under the decree, whether it was Rs. 500 and odd with interest from 11th August 1914 as claimed by the decree holder or ...
Tag this Judgment!Koti Mallikarjunayya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad427; 70Ind.Cas.400
ORDER1. The appellant sued to recover the amount of Rs. 1,499 with interest, etc., the principal sum having been as he alleged, paid to the Government under coercion. The lower Courts have dismissed his suit and he appeals against that dismissal.1. The circumstances in which the levy was made are, that the appellant imported a large quantity of timber into this Presidency by floating it down the Godavari from the Central Provinces. He did this under a pass given by the Central Provinces Forest Department on the 12th January 1915 which expired on 12th January 1916. He entered Madras territory on the 18th December 1915, but the pass had expired before he reached the checking station at Polavaram on the 6th June 1916. At Polavaram penalty and the value of the timber were collected from him under Section 55 of the Madras Forests Act inasmuch as he was suspected of having committed an offence under Section 36 by infringing the rules framed by the Madras Government under Section 35. These ru...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner and Secretary of the Chief Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad212; 64Ind.Cas.239
1. The question which the Board was directed to refer is whether in the circumstances. the Collector of Malabar had jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. Now the income which is taxable under the Act is, as provided in Section 3, 'all income from whatsoever source it is derived if it accrues or arises or is received in British India, or is under the provisions of this Act, deemed to accrue or arise or to be received in British India' and under Section 33(1) in the case of any person, residing out of British India, 'all profits or gains accruing or arising to such person, whether directly or indirectly through or from any business connection in British India, shall be deemed to be income accruing or arising in British India' and is consequently taxable under the express provisions of Section 3. It makes no difference with regard to this section whether the non-resident entitled to the income is a British subject or a foreigner, in either, case he is chargeable with the tax in British I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »