Chennai Court December 1949 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmace ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad439; [1950]18ITR849(Mad); (1950)2MLJ777
Satyanarayana Rao, J.(R.C. No. 57 of 1946)1. The following question was referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act :'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the profits made on the sales which took place in British India were 'income arising in British India' within the meaning of Section 4-A (c) (b), Income-tax Act?'The asseasee is the Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Madras, which is a public limited company registered in Madras carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of medicines. Messrs. Oakley Bowden and Co. (Madras) Ltd., a private limited company, are its managing agents. The managing agency agreement conferred upon the managing agents very wide powers subject only to the control of the Board of the principal company. The control, however, is very general and is confined only to safeguarding the interests of its share-holders.2. Until the war scare of 1942, the company(in this judgment referred to as the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. the Pala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1952Mad259; [1951]19ITR487(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These references though, they relate to different assessees arise under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, & the question referred is substantially the same in both. except for the dates.'Whether In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that, for the purpose of computing the capital employed in the business as at the beginning & the end of the standard period 1-10-1935 to 31-12-1936 (31-1-1936 is a mistake) the value of the depreciable assets should be determined with reference to the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, 1939'.(The standard period in R. C. No. 63 of 1947 is from 1-1-1936 to 31-12-1936).2. In view of the arguments addressed-in these cases we had to alter the question & it was agreed that the following question brings out clearly the real bone of contention between the parties: 'Whether the profits for the purpose of Rule 5 of Schedule II should be calculated in the manner prescribed b...
Tag this Judgment!Jambapuram Subbama Vs. Jambapuram Venkata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad394
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, Subbamma, had filed a petition, on 9th October 1947, in the lower Court, under Section 488, Criminal P. C., against her husband, the respondent, claiming maintenance for herself, at Rs. 100 a month, and for Pullanna, her son aged 17 on the date of the petition, at Rs. 50 a month. She claimed to be the third wife of the respondent and to have married him some twenty years back. She delivered two children who died soon after birth. So, the respondent married P. W. 2's daughter as his fourth wife. This fourth wife delivered a son, Pedda Raja Reddi, and died. Thereafter the petitioner delivered her son Pulla Reddi alias Pullanna. Misunderstandings between her and the respondent arose when the respondent celebrated the marriage of his brother's daughter, Sivamma, and wanted to give her two seers of gold and Rs. 2000 in cash two which she strongly objected and even sent round notices to his debtors not to pay their dues to him. So, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Goculdoss Jamnadoss and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR277(Mad)
SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest receipt of Rs. 43,299 in question is exempt from excess profits tax as profit of a part of a business accruing or arising in Mysore State within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?'The question is confined to the interest receipt of Rs. 43,299. The assessee, Messrs. Gouldoss Jamnadoss and Company, are residents in British India, carring on money-lending business at Madras. The chargeable; accounting period is the period commencing from 9th November, 1942, and ending with 28th October, 1943. During that period the assessee received the sum in question as interest accrued under a loan advanced to Messrs. M.L.Varadamanayya and Sons, Mysore, under a mortgage. The property comprised in the mortgage is in Mysore and the deed was executed on Mysore stamp paper and registered at Mysore. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Vs. Goculdoss Jamnadoss and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad773; (1950)IIMLJ9
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest receipt of Rs. 43,299/- in question is exempt from excess profits tax as profit of a 'part of a business' accruing or arising in Mysore Stats within the meaning of proviso 3 to S. 5, Excess Profits Tax Act?'The question is confined to the interest receipt of Rs. 43,293/-. The assessee Messrs. Gokuldas Jamnadas and Company are residents in British India, carrying on money-lending business at Madras. The chargeable accounting period is the period commencing from 9th November 1942 and ending with 28th October 1943. During that period the assessee received the sum in question as interest accrued under a loan advanced to Messrs. M.L. Varadamanayya and Sons, Mysore, under a mortgage. The property comprised in the mortgage is in Mysore and the deed was executed on Mysore stamp paper and registered at Mysore. This amount was assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Kota Kanakayya and anr. Vs. Kamepalli Lakshmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad218; (1950)2MLJ379
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. Encouraged by a recent decision of Mack J. in Venkatrama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Ammal : (1948)2MLJ404 , Mr. V. Suryanarayana, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P. C. The argument is that the order of remand has been carried out and the suit decided and the remedy of the defendants, here appellants, is only by way of an appeal from the final decree. It is urged that this appeal against the order of remand has to be dismissed on that ground as was done by Mack J. in the case above cited and for the same reasons. While I appreciate the vigour of the judgment of my learned brother I venture, with respect, to think that, as an ex-pression of legal principle, it is far from convincing. As I differ from his judgment it is my duty and I shall endeavour to state as clearly as I can, the reasons which have compelled...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maya Basuva and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad452
Govinda Menon, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 107 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Session, Coimbatore division, have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Giri Gowda just after dusk on 23rd October 1948 at the village of Doddinduvadi in Coimbatore district. They were also convicted under Section 201, Penal Code, for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. There were two other charges, viz., that against accused 1 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Chetty (P. W. 3) and accused 2 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Gowda (P.W. 1). For these minor offences, accused 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and accused 2 also to rigorous imprisonment for the same period. Accused 3 who is the appellant in C. A. No. 660 of 1949 was found guilty of an offence under Section 201, Penal Code along with accused 1 and 2 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The referred trial and the appeals by the accused have been he...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bisabathuni Ramalingayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad391
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The learned Public Prosecutor is afraid that the language used in Section17 (3), Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 will make it impossible for this Court to grant bail to persons like the petitioner, accused of an offence under Section 17 (1). His fears are groundless. Section 17 (3) runs as follows:'An offence under Sub-section (1) shall be cognizable by the police, and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, shall be nonbailable.'It is far fetched for the learned Public Prosecutor to think that this clause takes away from a person accused of an offence under Section 17 (1), the right, in suitable cases, to be released on bail under Sections 497 and 498, Criminal P. C. Section 17 (3) merely makes an offence under Section 17 (1) cognizable and also nonbailable, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code about such unlawful assemblies and meetings. Kindred offences under Sections 144, 145, 146 and 148, Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Konar Vs. Sanku Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad487
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two appeals arias out of a suit, O. S. No. 437 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat instituted by a landlord to evict a tenant. The tenant came into possession under an earlier lease, but the lease which was concerned in the suit was Ex. P. 1 dated 17th December 1934. The contention of the tenant was that he was entitled to purchase the landlord's right in the kudiyiruppu under Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act (Act XIV [14] of 1930) and he applied under that section for the necessary relief. The landlord resisted this application on the ground that for three years from 1943 to 1946, the date of the suit, there was no residential building at all on the site though there was one prior to 1943 and that, therefore, Section 33 had no application. The learned District Munsif found as a fact that there was no house on the site for three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit, and this finding was accepted also by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Bava C. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. the Abhisheka Kattalai Attached to Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad504
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1.The main point for determination in this second appeal is whether Section 48, Civil P. C. applies to and bars a decree of the Presidency Small Cause Court when it is transferred for execution to a mofussal civil Court. The facts are briefly these :2. The appellant here is the assignee decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 10554 of 1932 on the file of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras. The decree was obtained on 8th November 1932 on the foot of a promissory-note executed by respondent 1, Vaidhyalinga Pandarasannadhi, as trustee of the Abhisheka Kattalai of Sri Thiagaraja Temple, Tiruvarur, in favour of one Sabapathi Mudaliar and endorsed to one Ratnasabapathi Mudaliar. The said decree was got amended on 23rd August 1933 by directing the said Vaidhialinga Pandarasannadhi to pay the decree amount out of the assets of the Abhisheka Kattalai and Annadhana Kattalai of Sri Thyagarajaswami temple of Tiruvarur, in his hands, instead of its being a personal decree...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »