Chennai Court April 1930 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Manavedan Tirumalpad, Senior Raj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad704; (1930)59MLJ265
1. The question referred to by the Commissioner of Income-tax is:Whether the amounts received by sale of timber trees are income, liable as such to income-tax.2. The assesssee is the owner of unassessed forest lands in Malabar and was assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Palghat, for the year 1928-29 on an income of Rs. 5,395 from property and Rs. 3,07,629 from fees received in respect of timber cut and removed from the forests and other miscellaneous receipts. The assessee objects to the latter assessment. Before the Commissioner his contention was that he had purchased the forests with trees growing therein and that as, the trees were cut down and carried away the capital was thereby decreased. The Commissioner of Income-tax has pointed out that similar circumstances exist in the case of mines and quarries--this is conceded by Mr. Venkatrama Sastri who appears for the assessee--and that in neither of those cases is any deduction allowed by reason of the fact that as years go on the am...
Sathuluru Seetharamanujacharyulu Vs. Narra Venkatasubbamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad824; (1930)59MLJ485
Odgers, J.1. In this case an interesting question of law was opened, namely, as to whether the maintenance decree-holder with a charge (1st defendant) was to be held to have a superior claim to the plaintiff who purchased from a Court auction purchaser. It is admitted by Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellant that if the debt for which the property was brought to sale in execution of Small Cause No. 1906 of 1916 was not a debt binding on the family the claim of the 2nd defendant must prevail. The District Munsif held that the decree debt in S.C.S. No. 1906 of 1916 was not a binding debt which could prevail against the claim of the maintenance of the 1st defendant. He gives various reasons which have induced him to come to this conclusion and they are set out in paragraph 6 of his judgment. He observed inter alia that 'the extract from the suit register could have been produced to show the nature of the claim in S.C.S. No. 1906 of 1916.' There are, however, various other circumstances which i...
S.M.P. Periaswami Nadar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ778
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. On this petition we are asked to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the following question:Whether interest payments made to partners of the petitioners' firm, under the circumstances mentioned in the petition, and in the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax are admissible items of expenditure under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The assessees are a partnership firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of cotton seeds and it appears now to be a very flourishing business. In the year of assessment, 1928-1929, it was assessed to income-tax in the amount of Rs. 25,095. In arriving at this assessment, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 7,633-4-0, which the assessees claimed to be entitled to a deduction of from the gross profits of the partnership. They based their claim, as is apparent from the question we are asked to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer, on Section 10(2)(iii) ...
S.M. Periasamy Nadar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.39
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. On this petition we are asked to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the following question:Whether interest payments made to partners of the petitioners' firm under the circumstances mentioned in the petition, and in the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax are admissible items of expenditure under Section 10(2)(iii), Income Tax Act.2. The assessees are a partnership firm carrying on business in the purchase and sale of cotton seeds and it appears now to be a very flourishing business. In the year of assessment, 1928-229, it was assessed to income-tax in the amount of Rs. 25,095: In arriving at this assessment, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 7,633-40 which the assessees claimed to be entitled to a deduction from the gross profits of the partnership. They based their claim, as is apparent from the question we are asked to direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer, on Section 10(2)(iii) Income-tax Act, That...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Manavedan Tirumalpad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1930
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.596
1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is:Whether the amounts received by sale of timber-trees are income, liable as such, to income-tax.2. The assessee is the owner of unassessed forest lands in Malabar and was assessed by the Income Tax Officer, Palghat, for the year 1923 1929 on an income of Rs. 5,395 from property and Rs. 3,07,629 from fees received in respect of timber cut and removed from the forests and other miscellaneous receipts. The assessee objects to the latter assessment. Before the Commissioner his contention was that he had purchased the forests with trees growing therein and that as the trees were cut down and carried away the capital was thereby decreased. The Commissioner of Income-tax has pointed out that similar circumstances exist in the case of mines and quarries--this is conceded by Mr. Venkatarama Sastri who appears for the assessee--and that in neither of those cases is any deduction allowed by reason of the fact that as years go on t...
Sangali Vasudeva Rao Vs. the Municipal Council Represented by Its Chai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad844; (1930)59MLJ690
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the Municipal Council of Anantapur and its . Chairman for an injunction restraining them from collecting house tax, education tax and water tax; and it raises the question of the validity of the quinquennial revision under the District Municipalities Act V of 1920, Schedule IV, Rule 8 of the annual rental value of the lands and buildings within the municipal limits in, the official year 1927-28 and of the increase of the rate of the tax which was changed from 61/4 to71/2 per cent. under Section 80 of the Act, The District Munsif dismissed the suit as against the Chairman and granted an injunction as against the Council. On appeal by the Municipal Council the decree of the Lower Court was set aside except as regards the enhancement of the rate of water tax. In this second appeal the plaintiff confines his relief only to the house tax.2. The facts are briefly these: The plaintiff owns three ho...
(Yanati) Rami Reddi and anr. Vs. Tanati Chenchu Polamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad1000; 129Ind.Cas.66
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nellore. The defendants in the suit are the appellants and there are also objections by the successful plaintiff in the suit, the respondent here. The plaintiff, whose deceased husband and defendant 1 were undivided brothers filed the suit claiming maintenance. Defendant 2 is the undivided minor son of defendant 1. The plaintiff's husband died on 12th June 1919 and the suit was filed on 21st December 1923 claiming current maintenance at Rs. 250 a month and arrears from 12th June 1919 to the date of the plaint. The total valuation of the claim was Rs. 16,500. The learned District Judge awarded the plaintiff Rs. 50 in cash per mensem and three putties of paddy per annum equivalent to Rs. 240 per annum in respect of current maintenance and arrears at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem; and with regard to costs, he directed defendant 1 to pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit and also the whole of the courts-fee payabl...
In Re: Chinna Gangappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.230; (1930)59MLJ677
1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for giving false evidence about the murder of his wife in order to screen the real offender, and also under Section 203 for giving false information about the murder. He was also himself charged with the actual murder of his wife, but' was acquitted on that. The facts of the case briefly were:On the 12th August, 1929, at about 10 a.m., the deceased woman took food to her husband. P.W. 4 saw her there. He next saw her being carried in an unconscious state by the accused and his brother towards her house. P.W. 5 saw people in her house applying restoratives to her, while the accused and his brother were giving out that the woman had been stung by a scorpion or bitten by a snake. She died at 4 p.m. The accused himself made the report to the Village Munsif (P.W. 6), saying that he suspected that she had been stung. The woman's father (P.W. 8) was suspicious and reported to the...
In Re: Kolanda Nayakkan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.228; (1930)59MLJ939
1. The accused has teen convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of the offence of murder and sentenced to death.2. The charge against him was that at about 11 o'clock on the 20th of October last he stabbed one Abdul Muthu in the streets of Tiruppur and inflicted upon him seven incised wounds three of which were fatal. The man after running for some distance collapsed and died practically on the spot. The eyewitnesses to the attack are P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12. That it was the accused who so attacked the deceased has not been seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the accused, although he would suggest that the series of blows occurred in quicker succession than the eye-witnesses would say, and perhaps it may be allowed that on the medical evidence it is a little difficult to imagine how the deceased was able to run about 180 yards after receiving the blows which the medical certificate describes, and it may be that the attack was something more rapid and not quite s...
Avasarala Venkatarama Row Vs. the Maharaja of Pittapurana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad943; (1930)59MLJ312
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Maharaja of Pittapuram against the Secretary of State for India in Council as the 1st defendant, and Avasarala Venkatarama Row of Panduru as the 2nd defendant, for separate registration of the lands situated in the village of Panduru alleged to be within the zemindari of Pittapuram. Prior to the suit, the plaintiff applied to the Deputy Collector under the provisions of Madras Act I of 1876 for such separate registration. The 2nd defendant having raised an objection, the Deputy Collector declined to order separate registration, with the result that the Maharaja of Pittapuram filed the suit from which this second appeal has arisen.2. The main pleas raised by the 2nd defendant were (1) that there was no 'alienation' in the present case within the meaning of Act I of 1876, and (2) that, on the merits, the plaintiff was not entitled to separate registration since these lands were not included within the assets of the zemindari at the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »