Chennai Court October 1938 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 Co-operative Society, by Its President, M. Palanichami Pillai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad135; (1939)1MLJ117
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of an instrument of mortgage executed by one Minakshisundaram Pillai in favour of the appellant, a Co-operative Society in Veerapandi. The items of property entered in the mortgage were Section Nos. 1167/1 and 1167/4. The matter was referred by the Society to the Deputy Registrar who in his turn referred it to an arbitrator who passed an award in July, 1932, declaring the mortgage to be good against these two items. About two years later, it appears to have been discovered that Section No. 1167/1 was a wrong number in the mortgage deed and that the correct number ought to have been 1175/3. A reference was made to the Deputy Registrar to amend the decision of the arbitrator accordingly and the Deputy Registrar after consulting the mortgagor has so amended the decision. This amendment took place in June, 1934, and sometime later, the Society brought an execution application on the strength of the amended award and purchased the mortgaged property includi...
Parvata Satyanarayanamurthy and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Saheb Maharbabu-i-d ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad724; (1939)2MLJ329
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a batch of 28 appeals which arise out of suits filed by the Maharajah of Pithapuram the respondent herein against his tenants the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent for occupation of lands in various villages which originally formed part of what was known as Thotapalli estate to which the plaintiff claimed title by a purchase by his predecessor-in-title. The arrears of rent were claimed from faslis 1332 to 1343. The liability to pay rent was not disputed but most of the suits were resisted mainly on the ground of limitation and some were resisted on the ground that they were barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. In answer to the plea of limitation the plaintiff relied on Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the ground that a prior litigation against the same tenants in Civil Court saved limitation. In answer to the plea raised by Order 2, Rule 2, the plaintiff also relied on the pendency of the prior litigation in respect of the claims ...
Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, by His Power of Attorney Agent K. T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ402
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference relates to the assessment to income-tax of one Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar for the year 1935-36. The assessee lives at Paganeri in Chettinad where he has his business headquarters. He is a partner in numerous money-lending firms carrying on business in Burma and the Federated Malay States and is the owner of a rice-mill at Wakema in Burma. Until 1930 he had also a money-lending business in Colombo. He was assessed in respect of his business at headquarters and on sums which were held to be remittances of profits from foreign business. Four questions are embodied in this reference, namely:(1) Is there any evidence to support the rejection of the assessee's account books kept at his headquarters in British India?(2) Is the assessee entitled in law to a deduction of Rs. 1,875 in respect of depreciation of machinery in the Wakema mill, he having leased the mill?(3) Is the Income-tax Officer entitled in law to treat the remittance of Rs...
Gunda Subbayya Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad371; (1939)1MLJ451
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In accordance with the direction of the Court given under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred the following question for the Court's decision:When there is evidence on which the Income-tax Officer can base a finding that the assessee's books are unreliable and consequently rejects them and the assessee fails to produce other evidence, can the Income-tax Officer assess under Section 23(3) of the Act to the best of his judgment?The words 'to the best of his judgment' are used only in Sub-section (4), which requires the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment to the best of his judgment when there has been a default of the nature contemplated by the sub-section. Sub-section (3) directs the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and such other evidence as the Income-tax Officer may require him to produce on specified points. No direction is given...
Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad357; [1939]7ITR76(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - This reference relates to the assessment to income-tax of one Pr. Al. M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar for the year 1935-36. The assessee lives at Pagneri in Chettinad where he has his business headquarters. He is a partner in numerous money-lending firms carrying on business in Burma, and the Federated Malay States and is the owner of a rice mill at Wakema in Burma. Until 1930 he had also a money-lending business in Colombo. He was assessed respect of his business at headquarters and on sums which were held to be remittances of profits from foreign business. Four questions are embodied in this reference, namely :-(1) Is there any evidence to support the rejection of the assessees account books kept at his head-quarters in British India ?(2) Is the assessee entitled in law to a deduction of Rs. 1,875 in respect of depreciation of machinery in the Wakema mill, he having leased the mill ?(3) Is the Income-tax Officer entitled in law to treat the remittance of Rs. 81,834 as represe...
S.N. Narayana Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ35
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is a Nattukottai Chettiar. He carries on a money-lending business at Karaikudi in the Madras Presidency and at Ipoh in Telukanson in the Federated Malay States. Ipoh and Telukanson lie some fifty miles distance apart. During the year 1934-35 the business at Telukanson showed a profit of $16,047, but that at Ipoh showed a loss of $6,598. In respect of the year 1935-36 the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 20,515 which included a sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted to Karaikudi from Telukanson. The Income-tax Officer treated this as a remittance of profits of a foreign business, in addition to the Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson a sum of $1,954-48 was remitted from Ipoh. In view of the absence of profits at Ipoh the Income-tax Officer did not include the $1,954-48 in the assessment. The assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson should not be treated wholly as profits. He said that the proper ...
E.M. Muthappa Chettiar, Legal Representative of E.M. Viswanatham Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ371
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 18th November, 1932, E.M. Viswanatham Chettiar was assessed to income-tax on an income of Rs. 8,277 in respect of the Tamil year ended 12th April, 1932. The assessee was the managing member of an undivided Hindu family. The family carried on a money-lending business at Puduvayal in British India, in the Federated Malay States, and in Burma. The year of assessment closed on the 12th April, 1933 and on the 13th December, 1933, the Income-tax Officer having reason to believe that income earned during the accounting period had escaped assessment issued a notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. On the 6th October, 1934, the assessee filed a statement to the effect that that no income had escaped assessment. On the 25th February 1935, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under Section 23(2) to produce the evidence on which he proposed to rely. On the 18th July, 1936, the Income-tax Officer gave the assessee notice that ...
Narayanan Chaettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad79
Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is a Nattukottai Chettiar. He carries on a money-lending business at Karaikudi in the Madras Presidency and at Ipoh and Telukanson in the Federated Malay States. Ipoh and Telukanson lie some fifty miles distance apart. During the year 1934-35 the business at Telukanson showed a profit of 16,047 dollars but that at Ipoh showed a loss of 6,598 dollars. In respect of the year 1935-36 the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 20,515 which included a sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted to Karaikudi from Telukanson. The Income-tax Officer treated this as a remittance of profits of a foreign business. In addition to the Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson a sum of 1,954.48 dollars was remitted from Ipoh. In view of the absence of profits at Ipoh the Income tax Officer did not include the 1,954.48 dollars in the assessment. The assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson should not be treated wholly as profits. He said t...
Naryanan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR705(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee in this case is Nattukotai Chetiar. He carries on a money-lending business at Karaikudi in the Madras Presidency and at Ipoh and Telukanson in the federated Malay state. Ipoh and Telukanson lie some fifty miles distant apart. During the year 1934-35 the business at Telukanson showed a profit of 16,047 dollars but that at Ipoh showed a loss of 6,598 dollars. In respect of the year 1935-36 the assessee was assessed on a total in come of Rs. 20,515 which included a sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted to Karaikudi from Telukanson. The Income-tax Officer treats this as a remittance of profits of a foreign business : In addition to the Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson a sum of 1,954,48 dollars was remitted from Ipoh. In view of the absence of profits at Ipoh the Income-tax Officer did not include the 1,954,48 dollars in the assessment. The assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 20,000 remitted from Telukanson should not be treated wholly as profits. He said that the prop...
Palacherla Jalamenna Vs. Marina Ramarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad303; (1939)1MLJ38
Burn, J.1. We consider that the learned District Judge was right in holding that the sale of lot 2 before lot 1 was in the circumstances of this case, an irregularity, and since that irregularity precluded the respondent in A.A.O. No. 429 of 1937 from bidding for the property, it was a material irregularity. We have been referred to two cases in which learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court have held that the sale of items in a different order from that shown in the proclamation is not an irregularity. Inamullah Khan v. Shambhu Dayal : AIR1931All159 and Chhuttan Lal v. Muhammad Ikram Khan I.L.R.(1933) 55 All. 519. We observe however that in both those cases the selling officer had followed his usual practice of selling non-ancestral items first and ancestral items later. So far as we are aware, the practice in this Presidency is to sell the lots in the order in which they appear in the proclamation, and a departure from that order may (we do not say that in all cases it must) amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »