Chennai Court September 1923 Judgments
The Secretary to the Board of Revenue (income-tax) Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Rama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.608; (1924)46MLJ42
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Court is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction from the annual profits of what in fact is a loss made by him by the sale of certain machinery or plant. He carried on various businesses two of which consisted of rice-mills. He sold those mills and wishes to bring into account the difference between the purchase price of the machinery at those mills and the sale price, giving credit for the amounts, if any, allowed to him in previous years for depreciation. Whether he can do so or not turns on the proper interpretation of Section 9 of the Income Tax Act VII of 1918, Sub-section (2), Clauses (vi) and (vii). Certain specified allowances are thereby made which may be taken into account in arriving at the profits of the business. While the machinery is being used, Clause (vi) allows a certain annual depreciation on such machinery, the practice being, we are told, to consider that the machinery has a l...
Tag this Judgment!Vellayan Asari Vs. Sivagnanam Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad49; 79Ind.Cas.917
1. In this Second Appeal two points have been argued before us. It is argued first that the Lower Appellate Court erred in its application of Article 120 of the Limitation Act to the plaintiff's suit, in so far as it is concerned with item 1. It applied Article 120, relying on Mallikarjuna Prasada Naidu v. Matlapalli Virayya (1918) 41 Mad. 849 : Since the Lower Appellate Court gave judgment, the limitation applicable to a claim petition, when the claim is in respect of property originally attached before judgment, has been dealt with in Arunachalam Chetty v. Periasami Servai A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 163. According to that decision the attachment originally made before judgment would assume the character of an attachment in execution, certainly when an order is passed for the sale of the attached property, possibly also on the date when an application for execution after decree was made. We cannot find in the record any materials for the dates, on which those stages in the proceedings were reac...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue Vs. S.R.M.A.R. Ramanadhan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad455
Schwabe, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Court is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction from the annual profits of what in fact is a loss made by him by the sale of certain machinery or plant. He carried on various businesses, two of which consisted of rice mills. He sold those mills and wishes to bring into account the difference between the purchase price of the machinery at those mills and the sale price, giving credit for amounts, if any, allowed to him in any previous year for depreciation. Whether he can do so or not turns on the proper interpretation of Section 9 of the Income Tax, Act, VII of 1918, Sub-section (2), (sic) 6 and 7. Certain specified allowances at6 thereby made, which may betaken into account in arriving at the profits of the business. While the machinery is being used, Clause 6 allows a certain annual depreciation on such machinery, the practice being, we are told, to consider that the machinery has a life of 15 years, and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Kamulammal and anr. Vs. N. Chokkalingam Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad278; (1923)45MLJ840
1. Respondent's Vakil reports no instructions and withdraws from the case which is therefore heard ex parte.2. The question of limitation is first argued and on that we think appellant must succeed.3. The suit is to set aside a revenue sale and limitation is governed by Article 12(b) of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. This allows one year from the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive. There is no provision in the Estates Land Act similar to the one in C.P.C., Order 21, Rule 92, for confirmation of sale and for the sale thereupon becoming absolute and consequently the second clause of Article 12(b) of the Limitation Act must be applied. Section 124(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act provides that on payment of the purchase money and on the expiration of thirty days the Court shall if no application has been made to set aside the sale under Section 131 or if such application has been made and rejected, grant a certificate of sale to the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Kona Thimma Reddi Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad523; (1924)ILR47Mad325; (1924)46MLJ60
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the Government Order cancelling his election to the Gooty Taluk Board is ultra vires and illegal and does not affect the validity of his election, for a mandatory injunction directing his name to be published in the Fort St. George Gazette as duly elected, for an injunction prohibiting the Government from publishing the name of his rival candidate Subba Rao and for the recovery of Rs. 100 as damages. No evidence has been adduced in the suit. The election in question was held on the 13th of November 1915. It is not disputed that the plaintiff obtained the majority of votes, that the defeated candidate Subba Rao put in an objection petition and that the Government set aside the election of the plaintiff and ordered a fresh election on the ground that the plaintiff's presence in the Taluk Board as a member would bring the Local Fund Administration into cont...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Subramania Pillai Vs. Rakkumuthu Mooppan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad645; 79Ind.Cas.418
1. The facts are these. Plaintiff brought a suit on a mortgage executed to him by defendant No.1 for himself and as guardian of defendant No.2 the suit was compromised and a decree was passed which provided,2. A. that the amount due to plaintiff was Rs. 200 out of which he was to give Rs.30;3. B. that Rs.170 was to be paid by defendant by a certain date;4. C. that in default plaintiff was to recover Rs 200 and interest by executing the decree. (1) personally against defendant No.1, (2) by selling the mortgaged property, (3) out of the other property of defendants.5. Defendants defaulted, after which four attempts were made to execute the decree. Defendants had notice of the applications and on one occasion they actually appeared.6. On that occasion they did not contend that the decree was unexecutable but merely asked for the adjournment of the sale. This is fifth attempt at execution. Before he Munsif, both of the defendants appeared. Defendant No.1 pleaded that he had made certain pa...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalammal and anr. Vs. N. Chockalinga Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.840
1. Appellants' Vakil has no instructions. The appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 2 to 6. (Costs of papers in Appeal No. 279 of 1920 to be included).In A.S. Nos. 279 and 280 or 1920.2. Respondents' Vakil reports no instructions and withdraws from the care which, is therefore, heard ex parte.3. The question of limitation is first argved and on that we think appellant must succeed.4. The suit is to set aside a revenue tale and limitation is governed by Article 12(b) of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. This allows one year from the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive. There is no provision in the Estates land Act similar to one in the Civil Procedure Code Order XXI, Rule 92, for confirmation of sale and for the. sale thereupon becoming absolute, and consequently the second clause of Article 12(b) of the Limitation Act must be applied.5. Section 124 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act provides that on payment of the purchase-mo...
Tag this Judgment!Jeladi Burayya and ors. Vs. Ponduri Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ49
1. In this case defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants. They are the heirs-at-law of one minor Tirupatayya who died some time ago. The plaintiff brings this suit for recovering from the 1st defendant personally and from the minor's estate in the hands of defendants 2 to 5 the amount due under the promissory note, Ex. A, which is a renewal of Exs. A-1 and A-2. It is found by the learned District Judge that the money due under the promissory note was borrowed for the purpose of paying the purchase money for certain lands which the guardian of the minor purchased for him. The question we have to decide is whether the money so borrowed for purchasing lands--we will assume that the purchase was for the benefit of the minor--constitutes a debt really binding on the estate of the minor. There can be no doubt that there was no necessity to borrow this money at all, nor to buy the lands. The District Judge has found that there was no necessity so to borrow; but he seems to have thought that, as i...
Tag this Judgment!Jeladi Burrayya Minor by Guardian Hanumayamma and ors. Vs. Ponduri Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad472; (1924)ILR47Mad449
1. In this case defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the appellants. They are the heirs-at-law of one minor Tirupatayya who died sometime ago. The plaintiff brings this suit for recovering from the first defendant personally and from the minor's estate in the hands of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 the amount due under the promissory note, Exhibit A, which is a renewal of Exhibits A-1 and A-2. It is found by the learned District Judge that the money due under the promissory note was borrowed for the purpose of paying the purchase money for certain lands which the guardian of the minor purchased for him. The question we have to decide is whether the money so borrowed for purchasing lands--we will assume that the purchase was for the benefit of the minor--constitutes a debt really binding on the estate of the minor. There can be no doubt that there was no necessity to borrow this money at all, nor to buy the lands. The District Judge has found that there was no necessity so to borrow; but he seems to have...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Strathie Esq., M.A., I.C.S., Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.798
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the assessee made a return for. income tax and super-tax purposes in the beginning of the year 1921-1922. At first, he was assessed both to income-tax and super-tax, but he satisfied the authorities that the figure that they had taken was too large, and they reduced the assessment down to an amount which would involve the payment of income-tax only, that is to say, below the minimum super-tax amount. Under the scheme of Income-tax and super-tax then in force, to be found in Act VII of 1918, the Amending Acts and the Super-tax Act of 1920, for both income-tax and super-tax there was an adjustment at the end of the year; so that, if the anticipated income which was based on the preceding year's income and was the, basis of the preliminary original assessment was found by the result of the year's trading to be wrong--either 'too large or too small--the matter was adjusted by returning any amount overpaid or demanding any amount underpaid. By the I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »