Chennai Court February 1940 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. J. M. Muhammad Ismail Rowther.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad433; [1940]8ITR150(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessees is a resident of Kuthanallur in the Tanjore District in the Madras Presidency. He derives income from immovable properties which he possesses in British India and in Saigon in Indo-China and from a business which he carries on in partnership in Saigon. For the year 1937-38 he was assessed to income-tax in this country on a total income of Rs. 62,599. This amount included a sum of Rs. 62,006 which the Income-tax Officer held represented a remittance to British India of profits made in Saigon during the year of account. The assessee objected to the assessment. He contended that he had been over assessed to the extent of Rs. 60,000. For the two years which ended with 31st March 1936 the assessees profits in Saigon amounted to Pounds 59,290. Of this he remitted Pounds 39,834 during the year of account to the Bank of Mysore, Mysore City and there purchased Mysore Government Bonds of the face value of Rs. 60,000. The actual price paid for these bonds was Rs. 69,41...
In Re: Bangaru Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad699
Burn, J.1. The appellant Bangaru Reddi has been convicted of murder by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot and sentenced to death. The case for the prosecution was that on the early morning of 15th September 1939, the appellant killed a woman named Mangathayi Ammal by throttling her. Mangathayi's corpse was found just before daylight on the morning of 15th September when her little daughter, P.W. 5, a child of eight, came in after going outside to answer calls of nature. This child on her return called to her mother and getting no answer she went about the house trying to find her mother and at last her foot came in contact with her mother's head and then she discovered that her mother was motionless. It was found that jewels which Mangathayi was in the habit of wearing had been taken from her body but no one had any idea who the murderer was. Information was given to the Police by the karnam of the village (P.W. 10) who took action in the absence of the Village Munsif. The karna...
In Re: Neelakantan Nambisan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ478a
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was an ordinary director and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he was knowingly and wilfully a party to the default to maintain the requisite cash reserve. The conviction under Section 277-L of the Indian Companies' Act is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Puliyath Govinda Nair Vs. Parekalathil Achutan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad678; (1940)1MLJ682
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A suit was instituted by the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 288 and odd, being the price of paddy alleged to have been due by the respondent's brother and verbally agreed to be paid by the respondent. The lower Court found in favour of the agreement but refused to give effect to it as it was held to be without consideration. The plaintiff has consequently come up in, revision.2. It may not be quite correct to say that the agreement between the parties to the suit was without any consideration. The agreement by the plaintiff to release the defendant's brother from liability - if it was legally enforceable at the time when the agreement was said to have been reached - was quite a good consideration for the new agreement between the parties to the suit. But if 'the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's brother was barred by limitation on the date on which this agreement was arrived at and the contract was not reduced to writing as required by Section 25(3) of th...
Angora Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Angora Venkamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad365; (1940)1MLJ708
Burn, J.1. The appellant's claim that the suit was barred by Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895 cannot be allowed. This is not a suit for recovery of the emoluments of a Village Office (Section 13 of the Act) but a suit for partition of the inam land between two persons whose right to the inam in equal shares has already been established.2. This appeal is dismissed with costs.3. Leave refused....
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Ct. Murugappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ476
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the manager of a Hindu undivided family residing at Kanadukathan in the Ramnad District. The family derives income from property and business in money-lending at Kanadukathan and also at Okkan in Burma and Klang and Malacca in the Federated Malay States. For the year of assessment 1936-37, the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 13,828. The Income-tax Officer, having examined the accounts and considered the evidence produced in support of the return, assessed the family on an income of Rs. 14,651 which was subsequently reduced by the Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 10,833. The assessee was dissatisfied with the assessment and asked the Commissioner to refer certain questions of law to this Court for decision under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). In accordance with his request, the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to this Court the following questions:(1) Was there any material before the Assista...
In Re: Sivakalathi Gramany
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad488
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The conviction is under Section 75, City Police Act, and the order under Section 106, Criminal P.C., is not called for. The order under Section 106, Criminal P.C., is therefore set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. K. M. Ct. Murugappa Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad381; [1940]8ITR297(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee in this case is the manager of a Hindu undivided family residing at Kanadukathan in the Ramnad District. The family derives income from property and business in money-lending at Kanadukathan and also at Okkan in Burma and Klang and Malacca in the Federated Malay States. For the year of assessment 1936-37, the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 13,828. The Income-tax Officer having examined the accounts and considered the evidence produced in support of the return, assessed the family on an income of Rs. 14,651, which was subsequently reduced by the Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 10,833. The assessee was dissatisfied with the assessment and asked the Commissioner to refer certain questions of law to this Court for decision under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). In accordance with his request, the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to this Court the following questions :'(1) Was there any material before the Assistant Commissioner to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›