Chennai Court January 1932 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. K. Siddha Goudar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ638
1. The Commissioner of income-tax has referred the following question to us:Whether on the facts of this case the sum of Rs. 6,967 being the interest on the liabilities allotted to the share of the petitioner-family on the dissolution of the two firms in which it was a partner is allowable as a deduction against the profits and gains of the businesses carried on by it on its own account during the year of account.2. The facts with regard to this matter can, be shortly stated. The petitioners constitute a Hindu undivided family and carry on a money-lending business at Ootacamund. Up to the 24th May, 1929, they also owned a half share in a firm styled 'K.G.S. and Co.' and a two-fifths share in a firm styled 'B.K.S. and Co.' doing other classes of business in Ootacamund. These two firms were dissolved on the 24th May, 1929, an account was taken of their assets and liabilities and those assets and liabilities, when ascertained, were distributed between the petitioners and another partner n...
M.V.K. Venkataraman and ors. Vs. S. Sivagurunatha Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad639
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The two suits out of which these appeals arise relate to certain transactions entered into by the trustees for the time being of the Velur Devasthanam. A few facts concerning that institution and its trustees may be conveniently set forth at the outset. The Velur Devasthanam is a well-known and wealthy Siva Temple at Vaideeswarankoil and its affairs are managed by the Matathipathi of the Dharmapuram mutt; in other words, the head of that mutt is the ex officio trustee of the Devasthanam. The first Matathipathi with whom we are concerned is Sivagnana I who assumed that office in the year 1890. He continued to be the Matathipathi till 1903 when he relinquished his right in favour of Manickavachaga I. It must be mentioned that in 1900 Sivagnana I had appointed Manickavachaga I as Junior Pandarasannadhi and between 1900 and 1903 there were quarrels which led to proceedings in Court between these two persons. Finally, as I have said, in 1903 Sivagnana I relinquished h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Messrs K. Siddha Gouder and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad375; 137Ind.Cas.689
Beasley, C.J.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax has referred the following question to us:Whether on the facts of this case the sum of Rs. 6,967 being the interest on the liabilities allotted to the share of the petitioner family on the dissolution of the two firms in which it was a partner is allowable as deduction against the profits and gains of the businesses carried on by it on its own account during the year of account.2. The facts with regard to this matter can be shortly stated. The petitioners constitute a Hindu undivided family and carry on a money-lending business at Ootacamund. Up to 24th May, 1929, they also owned a half share in a firm styled 'K.G.S. & Co.' and a 2-5ths share in a firm styled 'B.K.S. & Co.' doing other classes of business in Ootacamund. These two firms were dissolved on 24th May, 1929, an account was taken of their assets and liabilities and those assets and liabilities, when ascertained, were distributed between the petitioners and another partner named B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›