Chennai Court August 1948 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.
R. A. Goodsir and Co., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR367(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question for decision is 'whether under the circumstances of the case the commissions paid to Luckman and Company and Bhatt and company are interest, salary, commission or remuneration paid by a firm to a partner within the meaning of Section 10 (4) (b) of the Income-tax Ac ?'The assessee is a firm composed of three partners, Lakshmana Iyer, Bhatt and Ganapathi Iyer. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 10th March, 1942. It was the manufacturers representative of Kiwi polish etc. Of the three partners, Lakshmana Iyer and Bhatt are also the respective proprietors of commission agency businesses known as Luckman and Company and Bhatt and Company respectively. Even before the constitution of the partnership in question, they were doing commission agency business as well as canvassing business in the said names and their business included also canvassing and selling other goods.The question for decision relates to two sums of Rs. 2,642 and Rs. 3,03...
Alla Annapurnamma Vs. P.L. Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Mad245
Horwill, J.1. The respondent sued the appellant for a settlement of the accounts of the profits, income and expenditure of the Sri Krishna Talkies, Guntur, in which he claimed a three annas share. The defendant's answer to the plaintiff's claim was that the plaintiff had owed her a sum of Rs. 750, for which and interest he had filed a suit for Rs. 929 8 0, asking for a charge on the three-annas share of the plaintiff for the suit amount. The suit resulted in a compromise, according to which the defendant was to be given a charge on the three-annas share until 31st July 1940. If by that date the plaintiff had paid Rs. 600, it would be accepted in full satisfaction of the decree against him. If he did not, then the plaintiff's three-annas share in the suit property would become extinguished and the defendant in full satisfaction of the suit claim would take the three annas share. The learned District Munsif held that since the plaintiff had not paid the Rs. 600 with-in the stipulated dat...
G. M. Madappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR385(Mad)
YAHAYA ALI, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the order of this Court in C. M. P. No. 4484 of 1946. We shall set out the questions at a larger stage. The reference arises out of the assessment for 1942-43 relating to the accounting period commencing from 10th October, 1940, and ending on 29th September, 1941. During that period, two items of cash receipts were brought into the account, namely, a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 26th March, 1941, and a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 2nd April, 1941. The two cash credits were discovered in the personal account designated as the 'cash chest account.' The Income-tax Officer assessed the aggregate sum of Rs. 15,000 as part of the total income of the assessee earned during the accounting year. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the 'cash chest account' had been in existence since 1931, the previous credits had gone to make up the opening balance of Rs....
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Messrs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR1(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the direction of this Court in C.M.P.Nos. 5830 and 5831 of 1946 is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case while the opening stock had been valued on the average costs basis, in accordance X with the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee in the past, the method of valuing some items of the closing stock on the average cost basis and others on the market basis for the relevant account year is in conformity with law and principle and whether the true profits of the year can be properly deducted from such basis of valuation.'The assessees are dealer in dye-stuffs and chemicals comprising numerous items. In valuing their opening and closing stock, the method followed by them was to take the average cost or market value, whichever was lower, in respect of the each separate article of the stock. For the relevant period the average cost of ...
P. A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR51(Mad)
YAHYA ALI, J. - The question referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 of the income-tax Act for decision is :-'Whether the firm purported to have been brought into existence by the deed of partnership dated August 14, 1941, can in law be register dander section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The proved facts are these. Raja Chettiar and Ramaswamy Chettiar who were brother constituted a joint Hindu family and carried on business as jewelries. Ramaswamy did in 1934 (that date is now mentioned by the applicants advocate while the Tribunal said that the date was not ascertainable). The widow Ranganayaki Ammal and two minor sons Viswanathan and Ranganathan survived Ramaswamy. The family was being assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family up the assessment year 1940-41. On August 19, 1940 there was a partition of the a undivided family and that portions was recognised by the income-tax department under section 25A. On the same date a deed of p...
T.V. Varada Pillai Vs. the Corporation of Madras, Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ379
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was dismissed by the learned City Civil Judge, Madras, on a preliminary point that statutory notice as contemplated by the Madras City Municipal Act had not been issued to the defendant.2. The plaintiff is the Zamindar of Mambakkam; and, according to the case as set out in the plaint, the defendant, the Corporation of Madras, issued a distress warrant against him for recovery of property tax, in respect of a house owned by him in Madras without even sending a previous demand as required by the City Municipal Act. He claimed as damages a sum of Rs. 500 for the illegal act of the Corporation in issuing a distress warrant. The defendant has raised various pleas which are covered by the issues in the suit and the sixth issue in the suit was tried as a preliminary issue. This raised the question whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of a statutory notice required under the City Municipal Act.3. Before the institutio...
C.V. Govindarajulu Iyer Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ436
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question for decision in this case has been framed by the Tribunal in the following manner:Whether on the assessce's failure without reasonable cause to furnish a return of his total income as required by a notice under Section 22(1), the Income-tax Officer was legally right in levying a penalty under Section 28(1)(a) in the course of the proceedings taken by a him under Section 34 read with Section 22(2) to assess such income, which had not previously been assessed at all.The facts are not in dispute. The applicant in spite of general notice under Section 22(1) of the Act did not within the prescribed time submit his returns for two successive years ending 12th April, 1942, and 12th April, 1943. The department, however, did not proceed to issue notices under Section 22(2) of the Act within the respective years of assessment. Subsequently on the 25th January, 1945, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under Section 34 of the Act calling upon the assessee to...
The Maharajah of Pithapuram Vs. Cittoori Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ631
Horwill, J.1. The question that arises in this Second Appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to enjoy land free of rent that was the subject of a pre-settlement grant. A few documents were filed in the case; and on this evidence the Subordinate Judge held that the respondent had not proved his claim. The suit, which ' was one for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to enjoy the land free of rent and for a refund of rent already paid, was dismissed in toto. In appeal, the District Judge held that the documents proved that the plaintiff (respondent) possessed the rights which he claimed. He held that a declaration should be given, as there had been a continuing wrong in collecting the rent from the plaintiff but that he could obtain a refund of rent wrongly paid only for a period of six years prior to suit.2. We know that from 1895 the land was described as Asalminaha Inam. Macleane defines this tenure thus:The term is therefore applied to rent free and other favourably a...
C. Vs. Govindarajulu Iyer V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR391(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question for decision in this case has been framed by the Tribunal in the following manner :-'Whether on the assessees failure without reasonable cause to furnish a return of his total income as required by a notice under Section 22 (1), the Income-tax Officer was legally right in levying a penalty under Section 28 (1) (a) in the course of proceedings taken by him under Section 34 read with Section 22 (2) to assess such income, which had not previously been assessed at all ?'The facts are not in dispute. The applicant is spite of a general notice under Section 22 (1) of the Act did not within the prescribed time submit his returns for two successive years ending 12th April, 1942, and 12th April, 1943. The department, however, did not proceed to issue notices under Section 22 (2) of the Act within the respective years of assessment. Subsequently on the 25th January, 1945, the Income-tax Officer issued notices under Section 34 of the Act calling upon the assessee t...
A. Nalliappa Pillai and ors. Vs. Palaniandi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ256; (1948)2MLJ358
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. When this revision petition came on for hearing on a previous occasion, I called for a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whether the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in this Court were true or not. The report which has been received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to some extent supports the allegations contained in the affidavit.2. The petitioners were the accused before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devakottah, and they were proceeded against under various section of the Indian Penal Code for having cut open the bund of a tank and thereby caused loss to the crops of the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after Bending the complaint to the police for enquiry and considering the police report, dismissed the complaint under' Section 203, Criminal P. C. The complainant took the matter in revision and the learned Sessions Judge following a decision Maccarthy v. Shannon : AIR1928Mad135 to the effect that before a complaint was rejec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »