Chennai Court November 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.
Chidambaram Chettiar, M. S. S. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad78; [1938]6ITR713(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - This reference arises out of an assessment of an undivided Hindu family the members of which are M. S. S. Chidambaram Chettiar and Meyappa Chettiar. The assessees are partners in various money-lending firms in the Federated Malay States and in Burma, and carry on the same kind of business at Karaikudi where they have their headquarters. One of their foreign firms does business at Ipoh in the Federated Malay states. Owing to the financial depression which existed there this firm was compelled to take over in satisfaction of debts due to it immovable properties which had been mortgaged as security for debts. The values of these immovable properties were treated as representing in part the return of capital and in part profits. The total profits of the firm were calculated and it was found that they amounted to dollars 1,27,806 of which dollars 74,570 was represented by land. the assessees share in the sum of dollars 74,570 was dollars 53,264. During the year of account (193...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR40(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - On the 16th August 1935 the assessee received from Penang remittance of Rs. 22,837 which the Income-tax authorities have treated as being a remittance out of the profits made by the assessee during the period from the 1st April 1932 to the 21st July 1933 and have assessed him to income-tax on this amount in respect of the year 1935-36. The assessee says that this remittance cannot be treated as a remittance out of the profits made during this period as the evidence clearly shows that it is not. The Commissioner of Income-tax having refused to state a case, he was directed to do so under the provisions of section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred is this :'Is there any evidence to support the finding of the Income-tax Officer that the sum of Rs. 22,837-4-10 received on the 16th August 1935 represents profits earned or accrued abroad within the years 1932-33, 1933-34 and 1934-35'.It is admitted that the sum could not represent profits accrued after the 21st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›