Chennai Court January 1945 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.
Sri Mtt.Ar.S.Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad186; (1945)1MLJ258
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The decision of this Court in Annamalai Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1944) 1 M.L.J. 419 : 1944 I.T.R. 254 answers the first question, and the answer is that the assessment should be made under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act.2. The decision of this Court in Ramaswami Ayyangar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras : AIR1944Mad154 , has bearing on the second question. In that case it was held that the expenses of obtaining probate and letters of administration were not deductible. In the present case the assessee wishes to deduct the cost of defending a suit filed by the Government of the Federated Malay States to recover from him death duty on his father's estate. The assessee successfully resisted the suit. He says that if he had not resisted it, the Government would have been able to seize the assets of his business in execution of the decree. This may have been the position, but it has no bearing on the question now under discussio...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Rm.Al.Ct. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ302
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar who was carrying on a money-lending business at Kajang in the Federated Malay States. In the year of account he instructed the Indiano Overseas Bank, Limited, at Kualalampur, to remit to its Karaikudi branch a sum of Rs. 8,000 which the bank at Karaikudi was to hold as a fixed deposit of the assessee, repayable at the end of twelve months. The money which the assessee paid into the bank at Kualalampur when he gave those instructions represented profits which the assessee had made at Kajang. This is not disputed. When the deposit matured the amount was paid to the assessee at Karaikudi. In these circumstances the Income-tax Officer held that the remittance from Kualalampuir represented a remittance of profits made by, the assessee at Kajang and included this amount in the assessment.2. There was an appeal to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner who took a different view of the transaction. The Appellate Assistant C...
A. Chockalingam Chettiar, Karaikudi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR122(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, has referred to this Court for answer the following question :-'Whether the income from agricultural land in Burma is covered within the definition given in Section 2 (1) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'Section 2 (1) (a) reads as follows :-'Agricultural income means any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land-revenue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Crown as such.'The assessee says that agricultural land in Burma is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Burma Government who are officers of the Crown. That may be the case, but we cannot accept that officers of the Crown in Burma are officers of the Crown within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. Agricultural income is exempt from income-tax in British Indian because it pays tax in another form to a Government in India ...
Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad311; [1945]13ITR183(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The decision of this Court in Annamalai Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, answer the first question, and the answer is that the assessment should be made under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act.The decision of this Court in Ramaswamy Ayyangar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, has bearing on the second question. In that case it was held that the expenses of obtaining probate and letters of administration were not deductible. In the present case the assessee wishes to deduct the cost of defending a suit filed by the Government of the Federate Malay States to recover from him death duty on his fathers estate. The assessee successfully resisted the suit. He says that if he had not resisted it, the Government would have been able to seize the assets of his business in execution of the decree. This may have been the position, but it has no bearing on the question now was sued as a person representing his f...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rm. Al. Ct. Annamalai Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR171(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar who was carrying on a money-lending business at Kajang in the Federated Malay States. In the year of account he instructed the Indian Overseas Bank, Limited, at Kualalumpur to remit to its as a fixed deposit of the assessee, repayable at the end of twelve months. The money which the assessee paid into the bank at Kualalumpur when he gave those instructions represented profits which the assessee had made at Kajang. This is not disputed. When the deposit matured the amount was paid to the assessee at Karaikudi. In these circumstances the Income-tax Officer held that the remittance from Kualalumpur represented a remittance of profits made by the assessee at Kajang and included this amount in the assessment.There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who took a different view of the transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered that the money on deposi...
E. M. Vs. Muthappa Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad513; [1945]13ITR311(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri J.)This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in pursuance of an order of this Court dated the 26th April 1943 passed in O. P. No. 48 of 1943 under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it stood prior to the Amendment Act of 1939.One E. M. V. Muthappa Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was assessed as the manager of his undivided family for the year 1937-38 on a total income of Rs. 2,11,793 of the previous year ended the 12th April 1937, including a sum of Rs. 2,03,823 as income derived from the money-lending business carried on by the assessee at various places in India, Burma and Malaya. The latter sum was reduced on appeal to Rs. 1,85,589 of which Rs. 1,18,118 was said to have been remittances to British India of profits earned in the assessees foreign branches at Klang and Penang, and Rs. 13,247 similar remittances of profits earned at Moulmein. It was found, and the fi...
Chedalavada Venkayya and anr. Vs. Payidi Tatayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad276; (1945)1MLJ211
Horwill, J.1. The question is whether the appellant's house which is under attachment is exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the Courts below have held that it was not.2. I am not prepared to go as far as to say that because an agriculturist has a shed in or near his field he cannot get exemption under Section 60(1)(c) for the house in which he ordinarily resides, unless he proves that he has tethered some cattle in the house or keeps agricultural implements there. An agriculturist, like every person, must have a house in which to live; and the fact that he has a shed in or near his field in which he may keep some implements and perhaps spend an hour, or two in the middle of the day while engaged in agricultural operations, would not disenable him from retaining possession of the house in which he ordinarily resides, provided that that house is not on a scale inappropriate to an agriculturist.3. Unfortunately, neither side has let in any...
Turaga Hanumantha Rao Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad236; (1945)1MLJ380
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The question in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the decree-holder is whether the execution petition can be treated as a continuation of a priorexecutionpetition,E.P.No.26ofi935,whichwasclosedon 5th November, 1936. The present petition was filed on,14th December, 1942, that is, more than six years after the order on the previous execution petition. The learned District Judge held against the appellant and gave two reasons for his conclusion. One is that the prior execution petition must really be deemed to have been dismissed though the order stated that it was ' closed,' because no schedule of immovable property was furnished, as it ought to have been under Order 21, Rule 13, and the real intention of the decree-holder was not to proceed with the attachment of the immovable properties which he wanted but only to secure rateable distribution of the assets that had been realised in execution of a decree obtained against the same judgment-debtors in...
Kavilpura Ezhuvan Muthu's son Chathunni and Ors. Vs. Pathiyil Rugmini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad232; (1945)1MLJ445
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. These two second appeals have been preferred by some of the defendants who are members of the Ezhuva community. The respondents are Nairs by caste. S.A. No. 19 of 1944 arises from the decision in O.S. No. 304of 1939 while S.A. No. 20 of 1944 relates to O.S. No. 303 of 1939.2. The main dispute between the parties is whether the Ezhuvas are entitled to bathe in the two tannks attached to the temples named in the plaints. In O.S. No. 303 of 1939 the Siva temple is known as Puvvakode Siva Kshetram and the tank attached to the temple goes by the name of Kokkote. In O.S. No. 304 of 1939 the name of the temple is Cherembath Kavu and the tank is known as Kavu Kulam.3. Alleging that the temples and the tanks belong exclusively to the Nair community and that the Ezhuvas who were of the theendal caste had no right to bathe in the tanks or enter the temples, the Nairs brought the two suits for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants--Ezhuvas from entering the t...
The Official Receiver Vs. Neminadha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad253; (1945)1MLJ469
Horwill, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition have been filed against the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore on an application by the Official Receiver to set aside a usufructuary mortgage executed by three insolvents in favour of the respondent and also a payment to him of Rs. 2,800. The learned District Judge agreed with the trial Court that the transactions in question were fraudulent preferences. The transactions were therefore set aside as far as the insolvents' share in the property was concerned but not with regard to the shares of certain members of the insolvents' family who had not been declared insolvents. The Official Receiver also claimed mesne profits, which was granted by the District Judge from the date of order and not, as the Official Receiver claimed, from the date of his application to set aside the alienations. The appeal and civil revision petition have been filed by the Official Receiver because of the refusal of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »