Chennai Court December 1934 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.
Rao Bahadur Mothay Gangaraju Garu Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad387; (1935)68MLJ222
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the sum of Rs. 1,50,390 is assessable to tax.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, who is a landowner and a money-lender and has an interest in certain cotton mills, purchased on the 22nd March, 1926, in Court auction in O.S. No. 24 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Bezwada, the right, title and interest of one Parthasarathi Appa Rao in the legacies left by one Venkayyamma. The suit in which these legacies figured had been up to the Privy Council and the position at the time of the purchase was that the decision upholding Venkayamma's disposing power over the income of the estate and the dispositions made by her in her will had been upheld. The Petitioner gave as purchase-money Rs. 39,800. He was not able to realise his interest until 1929. There was somewhat protracted litigation in between the date of the purchase and the date when he was able to get his money; and he had to take steps both ...
N.A.S.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ227
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended. The petitioner applied to the Income-tax Officer for a refund of Income-tax under Section 48 of the Act. This application was refused. The Petitioner then got the Commissioner of Income-tax to take the matter up in review under Section 33 and in review the Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of refusal of the Income-tax Officer. It is common ground that the Order made by the Commissioner was one under Section 33. The Petitioner then required the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the matter which he suggested was a question of law to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner took the view that that application to him under Section 66(2) was incompetent because his order under Section 33 was not one enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the applicant (the assessee). Section 66(2) which contains an amendment...
Pyda Ramakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Pyda Peda Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad346; (1935)68MLJ369
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is one of court-fee. The plaintiff, claiming to be the reversionary heir of the last male-holder Subbarayudu, has filed this suit against Subbarayudu's widow and certain alienees who claim under alienations made by Subbarayudu. He attacked the alienations on the ground that they were nominal and further challenged the genuineness of the will alleged to have been left by the last male-holder. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiff obtained a surrender of the estate from the widow and with the leave of the Court, converted his suit into one for possession. The question is, what is the proper court-fee payable?2. The contention that a separate court-fee need not be paid in respect of the relief of declaration, as regards the alienations, is unfounded and I must reject it. The alienations being attacked, the declaration is an essential relief and to hold that it is either superfluous or unnecessary, is wrong. The plaintiff claims through the ...
M. Ramanuja Aiyangar Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ93
Cornish, J.1. This petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council is made in a case where a point of law has been reserved for the decision of the High Court. There can be no doubt then, from what is said by their Lordships in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King-Emperor (1924) L.R. 52 I.A. 40 : 52 Cal. 197 : 48 M.L.J. 543 that the petition is competent. But the right of appeal given by Clause 41 of the Letters Patent is subject to the proviso that the High Court shall declare that the case is a fit one for appeal. The High Court therefore has the duty of satisfying itself, before declaring a case fit for appeal, that the case falls within the limits prescribed by the Privy Council for the entertainment of appeals in criminal matters.2. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee have repeatedly declared that they are not a Court of criminal appeal. In Dal Singh v. The King-Emperor (1917) L.R. 44 IndAp 137 : I.L.R. 44 Cal. 876 : 33 M.L.J. 555 they say: - 'It is well-settled that the unwri...
N.A.S.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad379
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, as amended. The petitioner applied to the Income-tax Officer for a refund Of Income-tax under Section 48 of the Act. This application was refused. The petitioner then got the Commissioner of Income-tax to take the matter up in review under Section 33 and in review the Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of refusal of the Income-tax Officer. It is common ground that the order made by the Commissioner was one under Section 33. The petitioner then required the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the matter which he suggested was a question of law to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner took the view that Application to him under Section 66(2) was incompetent because his order under Rule 33 was not one enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the applicant (the assessee). Section 66(2) which contains an amendment affecting this question reads as follows:Wit...
N. A. S. Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income Tax Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR55(Mad)
BEASLEY, C. J. :- This is a Petition under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act as amended. The petitioner applied to the Income Tax Officer for a refund of income tax under Section 48 of the Act. This application was refused. The petitioner then got the Commissioner of Income Tax to take the matter up in review under Section 33 and in review the Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of refusal of the Income Tax Officer. It is common ground that the order made by the Commissioner was one under Section 33. The petitioner then required the Commissioner of Income Tax to refer the matter which he suggested was a question of law to the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner took the view that application to him under Section 66(2) was incompetent because his order under Section 33 was not one enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the application (the assessee). Section 66(2) which contains an amendment affecting this question, ...
Mothay Gangaraju Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR58(Mad)
.BEASLEY, C. J. - The question referred to us is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 1,50,399, is assessable to tax.'The facts of the case are that the assessee, who is a landowner and a money-lender and has an interest in certain cotton mills, purchased on the 22nd March 1926, in Court auction in O. S. No. 24 of 1925 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bezwada, the right title and interest of one Parthasarathi Appa Rao in the legacies left by one Venkayamma. The suit in which these legacies figure had been up to the Privy Council and the position at the time of the purchase was that the decision upholding Venkayammas disposing power over the income of the estate and the dispositions made by her in her will had been upheld. The Petitioner gave as purchase money Rs. 39,800. He was not able to realise his interest until 1929. There was somewhat protracted litigation between the date of the purchase and the date when he was able to get his money; and he had to take steps both by way of defending h...
In Re: the Indian Income-tax Act, Xi of 1922
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1934
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.656
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the sura of Rs. 1,50,399 is assessable to tax.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee who is a landowner and a moneylender and has an interest in certain Cotton Mills, purchased on March 22, 1926 in Court auction in O.S. No. 21 of 1925, on the file of Sub-Judge, Bezwada, the right, title and interest of one Parthasarathi Appa Rao in the legacies left by one Venkayamma. The suit in which these legacies figured had been up to the Privy Council and the position at the time of the purchase was that the decision upholding Venkayamma's disposing power over the income of the estate and the dispositions made by her in her will had been upheld. The petitioner gave as purchase money Rs. 39,800. He was not able to realise his interest until 1929. There was somewhat protracted litigation in between the date of the purchase and the date when he was able to get his money; and he had to take steps both by way of defending his position and ...
The United Motor Finance Co. Represented by Miss A. thear
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad325; 159Ind.Cas.432; (1935)68MLJ336
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner, the United Motor Finance Co., represented by Miss A. Thear, was prosecuted under Section 7, of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for failing to pay the tax due for three quarters in respect of a motor omnibus, and has been fined Rs. 5 and ordered to pay the amount of c the tax due.2. The motor omnibus was registered in the joint names of the company and of one T.A. Sadasiva Pillai of Tanjore. Actually the motor-omnibus was hired by the company to this man. But it appears from the endorsements on the registration certificate (Ex. A) that there were subsequent transfers of the vehicle. An attempt was made by the authorities to levy the tax on Sadasiva Pillai; but it was reported that he was insolvent. Thereupon payment of the tax due on the vehicle was demanded of the petitioner, and the demand not having been complied with proceedings were taken under Section 7 of the Act.3. The petitioner resists liability for the tax on the ground that there has been...
Naranthatta UThe Amma and anr. Vs. Mavila Mani Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad337; (1935)68MLJ372
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants are two members of a Malabar tarwad who claim certain shares in properties which under a partition deed (Ex. A) fell to the share of one Kannan Nair. This partition was entered into on the 4th September, 1924, between Kannan Nair, his brother Koman Nair, his sister Kunhi Uthama Amma and her son Krishnan Nair. The two latter are the present plaintiffs. Ex. A divided their tarwad properties into four shares, three of them being main shares, so to say, allotted to the two brothers and the sister and the fourth, a smaller share allotted to the nephew. The document contains various provisions giving very large powers of disposition to the sharers in respect of the properties that fell to their respective shares and detailed provisions are made for the various sharers bearing in proportion to the respective shares certain liabilities which were theretofore joint. Towards the end of the document there is a clause in the following terms:If, while t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »