Chennai Court December 1931 Judgments
In Re: Vellamoonji Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.863; (1932)62MLJ559
Waller, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of a woman called Chinnathayee. Three other men who were tried with him were acquitted. The case against him was based on the evidence of an approver, corroborated by that of a number of witnesses. On a confession and on the discovery of some of the murdered woman's jewellery in his possession, the Sessions Judge, disbelieved the evidence of the approver and of the corroborating witnesses and convicted on the confession, supported by the production of the jewels.2. Chinnathayee disappeared on 28th April. On 21st May the approver and the appellant led the Magistrate and the Police to a place, where, they said, her body had been buried. The earth was removed and the disintegrated skeleton of a human being, with some flesh adhering to parts of it, was discovered, which the Medical Officer certified to be that of a woman. The shoulder-blades and collar-bones and eight ribs were missing--a very strange circumstance, as there is no ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Panchapakesa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.557; (1932)62MLJ656
1. Two questions are referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax:(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 8,256 paid to the assessee by the Government of Madras on March 12, 1930, is income liable to tax, and(2) Whether the said sum is exempt from tax under Clause (v) or Clause (vii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act.2. The facts are as follows:--The assessee was an Assistant Engineer in Government service. In 1923, he with other Assistant Engineers was compulsorily retired. His retiring age was 55 and he would have reached that age in 1927. He was thus compulsorily retired from service four years before he should have been. He and the others similarly compulsorily retired presented memorials to the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India setting forth their grievances and this resulted in the issue of the following order by the latter which was published by the Government of Madras on the 8th March, 1930, vis., that the assessee should receive as compensation (1) a lu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Panchapakesa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad424
Beasley, C.J.1. Two questions are referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax:(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 8,256 paid to the assessee by the Government of Madras on 12th March 1930, is income liable to tax? and (2) Whether the said sum is exempt from tax under Clause (5) or Clause (7), Sub-section 3, Section 4 of the Act?2. The facts are as follows: The assessee was an Assistant Engineer in Government service. In 1923 he with other Assistant Engineers was compulsorily retired. His retiring age was 55 and he would have reached that age in 1927. He was thus compulsorily retired from service four years before he should have been. He and the others similarly compulsorily retired presented memorials to the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India setting forth their grievances and this resulted in the issue of the following order by the latter which was published by the Government of Madras on 8th March 1930, viz., that the assessee should receive as compensation; (1) a l...
Tag this Judgment!Yeditha Bhupathi Raju Garu Vs. Nyapati Subba Rao Pantulu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad410; (1932)62MLJ472
Waller, J.1. The respondent in this Second Appeal is a landholder within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. The appellant, who is a minor inamdar holding under him, was found by a Bench of this Court in a litigation, to which he was not a party, to be one of his occupancy tenants. See Bhupatiraju v. Venkataratnam : (1921)41MLJ512 Up till that time the appellant had been treated as an intermediate landholder and land cess had been calculated on the rental paid to him by his tenants. The Collector continued to calculate it on that basis and collected it from the respondent. The appellant not having paid, the respondent proceeded against him under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act. The result was a suit by the appellant contesting his right so to proceed. Put shortly, the suit is based on the plea that the cess should have been calculated on the comparatively insignificant amount payable to the landholder by way of quit-rent. The Trial Court, finding that the appellant was a tenant an...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajah Inugenti Rajagopala Venkata N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad436; (1932)63MLJ20
Ramesam, J.1. The petitioner here is the Zemindar of Kirlampudi. He has been assessed to income-tax on Rs. 7,441, as being income from money-lending. What happened was that when the ryots were unable to pay rents the Zemindar took promissory notes from them for the amount of rent with interest. The Income-tax Officer has assessed the Zemindar on the amount of accrued interest on such promissory notes. Mr. Rajamannar contends before us that this amount of interest must be regarded as agricultural income and he relies on Section 61 of the Estates Land Act. Section 61 says that the rate of interest on arrears of rent should be at half per cent, per mensem and Section 187(2) prohibits the landlord from taking a higher rate of interest than that provided by Section 61. All this is no doubt quite true. But these sections only apply if a suit is brought directly on the liability of the ryot to pay rent. But in this case by a fresh contract between the Zemindar and the ryots the actual charact...
Tag this Judgment!V.V.R. Firm Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ227
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The following question has been referred to us, viz., 'Whether from the circumstance that the 59,000 dollars borrowed by the Saigon branch and transferred to Rangoon to the Rangoon branch were re-paid by the Saigon branch to the lenders before a re-transfer of the amount from Rangoon, the Income-tax Commissioner should have drawn the inference that the 59,000 dollars were a remittance from capital rather than from profits.'2. The facts are that the petitioners carry on banking business in Rangoon and also in Saigon. In January, 1927, there was a run in their business at Rangoon and it was necessary to raise funds for the purpose of discharging their liabilities at that place. Large sums of money were borrowed in British India, but these were insufficient to fully meet the petitioners' liabilities; and the petitioners accordingly instructed their agent in Saigon to borrow money and remit $1,00,000 to their Rangoon agent agreeing to re-pay the amo...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Minsararasam Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad437; (1932)63MLJ11
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners here, a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of the 'Minsararasam,' a patent medicine, claimed a deduction from their income in the year of account of a sum of Rs. 13,000 odd as a lawfully deductible item. They claimed to deduct that sum under Section 10(2)(ix) of the Indian Income-tax Act as being expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains. It appears that one Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu had invented this patent medicine or at any rate was the owner of its secret; and on the 29th March, 1923, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu for the purchase by them and for the sale by him of all rights and privileges of manufacturing, selling and generally dealing in Minsararasam and covenanted that, if they successfully promoted the company, Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu should sell to them all such rights and privileges...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Rm. A.L.A. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad433; (1932)63MLJ236
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has of his own motion referred to us the following question:Whether on the facts of this case the return submitted on the 7th January, 1929, should have been treated as a revised return covered by the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee made a return of his income on the 22nd August, 1928. Unfortunately that return was incorrect, not with regard to a small amount but to the extent of Rs. 34,327. The Income-tax. Officer has found, and his finding has been upheld by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax, that the omission of that sum was deliberate. We take that to mean that the assessee knew when he made his return that it was false. After the assessee had made that return, the Income-tax Officer, whilst examining some other accounts, made certain discoveries and in the beginning of January, 1929, he appeared to be on the point of discovering this deliberate and ...
Tag this Judgment!V.V.R. Firm Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad573; 139Ind.Cas.173
Beasley, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to up, viz.whether from the circumstance that the 59,000 dollors borrowed by the Saigon branch and transferred to Rangoon to the Rangoon branch were repaid by the Saigon branch to the lenders before a retransfer of the amount from Rangoon, the Income-tax Commissioner should have drawn the inference that, the 59,000 dollors were a remittance from capital rather than from profits.2. The facts are that the petitioners carry on banking business in Rangoon and also in Saigon. In January, 1927, there was a run in their business at Rangoon and it was necessary to raise funds for the purpose of discharging their liabilities at that place. Large sums of money were borrowed in British India but these were insufficient to fully meet the petitioner's liabilities; and the petitioners accordingly instructed their agent in Saigon to borrow money and remit $1,00,000 to their Rangoon agent aggressing to repay the amount to the Saigon business wit...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Minsara Rasam Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.273
Beasley, C.J.1. The petitioners here, a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of 'The Minsara Rasam' a patent medicine, claimed a deduction from their income in the year of account of a sum of Rs. 13,000 odd as a lawfully deductible item. They claimed to deduct that sum under Section 10 (2)(ix) of the Indian Income Tax Act as being expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains. It appears that one Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu had invented this patent medicine or at any rate was the owner of its secret; and on the 29th March, 1923, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Dr. Varadarajulu Naidu for the purchase by them and for the sale by him of all rights and privileges of manufacturing, selling and generally dealing in Minsararasam and covenanted that, if they successfully promoted the company, Dr. Vsradarajulu Naidu should to them all such rights and privileges for manufacturing, gelling an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »