Chennai Court September 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.
S.V.P. Sudalaimani Nadar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ99
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the manager of a joint Hindu family which exports goats and sheep from this country to Colombo and sells them there at a profit. For the year 1936-37 the assessee was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin Circle, on a total income of Rs. 16,412 which included a sum of Rs. 15,139 found to be the profits made in Colombo and remitted to British India. The Income-tax Officer's order of assessment was revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, who assessed the income at Rs. 31,384. Included in this amount was the figure of Rs. 9,000 which the Commissioner said was the amount of profit which had accrued to the assessee in British India from this business. The Commissioner considered that the assessee had bought the animals at lower prices than those disclosed in his invoices when shipping them to Colombo. The assessee objected to an assessment on this basis and asked the Commissioner to state a case to this ...
Vaidyaratnam P.S. Varier Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad249; (1941)1MLJ103
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is an Ayurvedic physician. He carries on an extensive business in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines at Kottakkal, Palghat, and Calicut. In addition to the income which he derives from the manufacture and sale of medicines and from the practice of his profession, he derives income from property and 'sundry other sources'. One of his other activities is the maintaining of a dramatic troupe which gives public performances in the Malabar District, Cochin and Travancore at certain seasons of the year. At Kottakkal, Palghat and Calicut the assessee is the owner of premises in which he sells his medicines. At each place, adjoining the premises used by him for the sale of his Ayurvedic medicines, is a hall in which the assessee's dramatic troupe also gives performances. At all the performances prices for admission are charged. For the year 1937-1938 the assessee returned an income of Rs. 18,061-4-11 and sought to deduct a sum of Rs. ...
K. Sambasiva Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ918
King, J.1. These are appeals by five persons who were in 1933 some of the creditors of one Kasinatha Aiyar. One of the appellants in C. M. S. A. No. 136 (respondent 6 in the Courts below) was pursuing execution against Kasinatha Aiyar and on 30th June, 1933, three lots of Kasinatha Aiyar's property were sold in Court auction. Two lots in Annakudi village were sold for Rs. 7,500, which amount was paid in full there and then. The third lot in Manikandi village was sold for Rs. 4,520. One quarter of this amount was deposited on 30th June as required by Order 21, Rule 84, and the remaining three-quarters on 4th July. The sum of Rs. 12,020 was treated as assets realised and rateably distributed amongst the appellants and another creditor who has not appealed. On 3rd July, an insolvency petition was presented against Kasinatha Aiyar which resulted in his adjudication. The Official Receiver in administering his estate applied to the Court for an order directing the appellants to pay to him th...
Sudalaimani Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad229; [1940]8ITR619(Mad)
Leach, C.J. - The assessee in this case is the manager of a joint Hindu family which exports goats and sheep from this country to Colombo and sells them there at a profit. For the year 1936-37 the assessee was assessed to income-tax by the income-tax Officer, Tuticorin Circle, on a total income of Rs. 16,412 which included a sum of Rs. 15,139 found to be the profits made in Colombo and remitted to British India. The Income-tax Officers order of assessment was revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, who assessed the income at Rs. 31,384. Included in this amount was the figure of Rs. 9,000 which the Commissioner said was the amount of profit which had accrued to the assessee in British India from this business. The Commissioner considered that the assessee had bought the animals at lower prices than those disclosed in his invoices when shipping them to Colombo. The assessee objected to an assessment on this basis and asked the Commissioner to state a case to this Court. The Commission...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A. V. P Mr. M. Lakshmanan Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR545(Mad)
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).This reference, which the Commissioner of Income-tax has made suo motu under the provisions of section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, raises an interesting question of law. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar and he was assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi I circle, on an income of Rs. 65,865 for the year 1938-39. If this assessment is to be regarded as being on the assessee as an individual he will be required to pay super-tax, but if the assessment is on him as the representative of a joint Hindu family super-tax will not be payable, because in the case of an undivided Hindu family super-tax is not leviable until the income exceeds Rs. 75,000. The assess was joint with his father Murugappa Chettiar until the fathers death on the 18th January 1938. The only surviving members of the family are the assessee and his step-mother. The question referred is this :-'Whether on the facts s...
P. S. Varier Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR628(Mad)
(The judgment of the court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The assessee is an Ayurvedic physician. He carries on an extensive business in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines at Kottakal, Palghat and Calicut. In addition to the income which he derives from the manufacture and sale of medicines and from the practice of his profession, he derives income from property and 'sundry other sources'. One of his other activities is the maintaining of a dramatic troupe which gives public performances in the Malabar District, Cochin and Travancore at certain seasons of the year. At Kottakkal, Palghat and Calicut the assessee is the owner of premises in which he sells his medicines. At each place, adjoining the premises used by him for the sale of his Ayurvedic medicines, is a hall in which the assessees dramatic troupe also gives performances. At all the performances prices for admission are charged. For the Year 1937-38 the assessees returned an income of Rs. 18,651-4-1...
In Re: Sri A. Ramanuja Ayyangar, First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ1031
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a First Grade Pleader practising at Vellore. He has been charged with professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain accounts in respect of his professional work. Rule 16 of the rules framed under the Legal Practitioners' Act states that it is the duty of every pleader to keep regular accounts of all moneys received and disbursed by him in connection with each suit in which he is engaged as a pleader. The rule goes on to say that the failure to keep such accounts will be treated as a reasonable cause for suspension of certificate within the meaning of Section 13 (f) of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879.2. In answer to the charge the respondent sent by post a communication to the District Munsif of Vellore who had framed the charge, stating that, as he had no legal work worth mentioning, there was no necessity to maintain any accounts, and that he was under the bona fide belief that he need not keep any accounts under the c...
Velayudha Maistry and anr. Vs. Mari Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad379; (1941)1MLJ161
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of East Tanjore dated 11th July, 1939, modifying in appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Negapatam dated 12th November, 1937, in O.S. No. 39 of 1936. The suit was one instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to a narrow strip of land in the Negapatam Municipality abutting on a tank belonging to the community of the defendant, that is, the washermen of the locality. The land in question is a narrow strip of about 15 feet abutting on the plaintiff's garden which she purchased in December, 1935. This strip was claimed by the plaintiff as part of her garden and included in? S. No. 1499. The defendants on the other hand alleged that the strip of land constituted the bund of the tank and belonged to them along with the tank and was included in S. No. 1500. The plaintiff's claim to this strip was negatived by the first Court and also by the lower appellate Court but in the appeal which was preferred...
Manikka N. Perumal Aiyar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ31
Horwill, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Manamadura dismissing an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that the application did not disclose any cause of action.2. It is conceded that the application itself did disclose; cause of action; but the learned District Munsif, after seeing the counter of the defendant and looking into certain document produced by him, held that the suit was barred by res judicata. The question that arises in this petition is whether the Court was right in considering the counter and documents and dismissing the application on that account. A further point arises whether, even if he ought not to have done so, this Court can entertain a revision petition on the ground that there was an act without jurisdiction.3. Order 33, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, says that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper if any one of five conditions is fulfilled. The condition wit...
Tn Re: Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad276
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The car of the petitioner was used for carrying passengers for reward under a contract for the use of the vehicle for an agreed sum and possession of the car was not transferred within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 4, Clause (iii), Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1938. The car would therefore be a 'contract carriage' as defined in Rule 4, Clause (iii) and the petitioner had no permit to use it. as a contract carriage. The conviction is therefore correct but the .fine is excessive and it is reduced to Rs. 20; otherwise this petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »