Chennai Court January 1950 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 Vs. Proprietors of The Hindu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad671; [1950]18ITR237(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This reference raises a question of the correct interpretation of the expression 'the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such succession' occurring in Section 25(4), Income-tax Act. The question formulated by the Appellate Tribunal and referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Act is in these terms ;'Whether on the facts of this case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period the profits of which were entitled to exemption from the payment of the tax under Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act, 1939, was the period commencing from 1st July 1938, and coding with 29th February 1940,' In short, the dispute is whether the 'previous year' referred to in the Sub-section should be taken as the year ending on 30th June 1938, or 30th June 1939. The assessee contends that it is the former, while the Income-tax Commissioner maintains that it is the latter. There is no decided case on the point and the question has to be settled by an inte...
V.N.V. Devarajulu Chetty and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad718; [1950]18ITR357(Mad); (1950)IIMLJ33
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us :1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Income-tax Officer that the profit of the firm should be apportioned between the three present partners and not between the five old partners as claimed by the applicants ?2. Whether in the alternative, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the sum of Rs. 18,911-12 0 paid to the old partners on the ground that the payment has been made out of the profits earned by the applicant firm?The facts which have given rise to this reference have to be briefly stated. V.N.V. Devarajulu Chetty and Co. a firm of five partners started a wholesale business in piecegoods, Indian and foreign, in September 1940. On 31st October 1942, two of the five partners retired from the firm and the three surviving partners thereafter carried on the business under the same name and style as before, but as a new firm. This new firm is the ...
Annapurna Patrani and ors. Vs. Lakshmana Kara and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad740
Horwill, J. 1. The respondent obtained a simple money decree. In execution against the property which we are here concerned, the property was attached, but the petition was subsequently dismissed for default on the ground that the sale papers and the encumbrance certificate had not been filed. Eventually, however, on 28th January 1943, the decision of the executing Court was reversed with the result that the execution proceeded. In the meanwhile, however, on 10th May 1941, the appellant purchased the property that had been attached for Rs. 4500. Two questions arise in this appeal: (1) whether, upon the allowing of the appeal, the consequential order raising the attachment was automatically set aside; and (2) whether, even if it did so, it would affect the transaction that had been entered into at a time when in fact no attachment was subsisting. Both these points were decided against the appellant by the learned Judge (Panchapakesa Aiyar J.) in second appeal; but as he has granted a ce...
Al. Vr. Pv. Vr. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad692; [1950]18ITR396(Mad)
Yiswanatha Sastri, J.1. This Court by its order in C. M. P No. 3322 of 1945 directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case raising the following question of law:'Whether on the facts of the case the sum of Rs. 36,182/- can be assessed to income-tax under Section 4 (1) (b) (iii), Income-tax Act.' 2. It is necessary to state briefly the facts which have given rise to the question of law involved in the case. The assessee Veerappa Chettiar was the junior member of a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending business in Colombo, the manager of the family being his elder brother, Pethaperumal Chettiar. The two brothers separated under a partition arrangement evidenced by a registered document dated 19th June 1938. Under this partition arrangement, the elder brother, Pethaperumal Chettiar, took over the entire assets of the Colombo business consisting of its properties, out-standings and the profits that had been earned by the business till then and agreed to pay to his younger broth...
In Re: K. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad443
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the appellate authority passed under Madras ACT XV of 1946 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The order has not been filed, but in the affidavit it is stated to be as follows : 'Appellant called, absent. Dismissed.' It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the appellant was not present either in person or by advocate, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to have decided the appeal and the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act are relied on. In our opinion, when neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared to show how the Rent Controller erred and it was not shown that the decision of the Rent Controller was in any way erroneous, the appellate authority had no other course but to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal in such circumstances is nevertheless a decision of the appeal. There is no ground for interference by certiorari. The application is dis...
K. Appalaraju and ors. Vs. K. Rajagopala Narasaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad595
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by some of the plaintiffs from the judgment of Byers J. dismissing the suit which they and some others had brought for a share in a certain pension.2. In 1840, the Government either resumed or bought in the zamindary of Ramachandrapuram for arrears of peishcush. Some time between that year and 1846 the Government made a grant of Rs. 400/- per mensem to Ramachandraraju I apparently, solely on compassionate grounds. It is alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the grant was made for the maintenance of the family but the relevant document has not been filed and is not before us. Ramachandra died in 1846 and, about two years later, the Government made a grant of Rs. 700/- per month to his eldest son Narasaraju II. Exhibit C which evidences the grant makes it clear that it was 'for the support of the family.' Out of this allowance Narasaraju II was making grants to his brothers and cousins. It appears that in all he was paying out a ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax Vs. Parasram Jethan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad631; [1950]18ITR302(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows: 'Whether in the circumstances Section 42, Income-tax Act, as amended in 1939, would apply to 'residents' as well?'The facts out of which this reference arises may be briefly stated. The assessee is a merchant carrying on business in Madras in paper and stationery and has been assessed as an individual resident and ordinarily resident in British India. In February 1942, the assessee opened a branch of his business at Mysore where paper and articles of stationery were sold. It is common ground that there have been no remittances of money or profits from Mysore to British India. The Income-tax Officer, however, found that there was an intimate business connection between the bead office at Madras and the branch at Mysore, and held that a portion of the profits earned by the business at Mysore should be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India by reason of Section 42 (1), Income-tax Act of 1922, as am...
The Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. by Agents, Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad652; [1950]18ITR234(Mad)
Horwill, J.1. The appellants raised certain points before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and asked it to refer under Section 66, Income-tax Act, certain questions to the High Court for decision. The tribunal has referred certain questions; but, it considered that the other proposed questions either did not arise or were in the nature of arguments. The appellants thereupon filed an application in the Original Side under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for a writ of Mandamus requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer also the other questions of law raised by the appellants before the tribunal. Yahya Ali J. held that Section 45, Specific Relief Act, had no application; because the appellants had an appropriate remedy under the Income-tax Act.2. It is not denied in this Court that if a remedy is open to the appellants under Section 66, Income-tax Act, an application under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, would not lie. So the short point argued here is whether under Section 6...
K.M.S. Lakshmanier and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax and Exc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad668; [1950]181ITR734(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Under Section 66(1) Income-tax Act, 1922 read with Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act, the following question is referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal for decision, namely :'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the moneys deposited by customers with the assessee firm as security deposits were 'borrowed money' within the meaning of Rule 2A of Schedule II, Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, either throughout the chargeable accounting period ended 12th April 1945 or during any part of that chargeable accounting period.' The only question that arises for decision, therefore, relates to capital computation. The assessees are the selling agents for yarn of Madura Mills Co., Ltd. During the chargeable account period, 13th April 1944 to 12th April 1945, they received from their customers a sum of rupees 7,69,569 as security deposits and the question that has to be decided is whether this sum is 'borrowed money' within the meaning of Rule 2A of Schedule II, Excess Pr...
K. M. S. Lakshmanier and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Exces ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR734(Mad)
( Satyanarayana Rao, J.)Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the following question is referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal for decision, namely :-'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the moneys deposited by customers with the assessee firm as security deposits were borrowed money within the meaning of Rule 2A of the Second Schedule to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, either throughout the chargeable accounting period ended 12th April, 1945, or during any part of that chargeable accounting period.'The only question that arises for decision therefore relates to capital computation. The assessees are the selling agents for yarn of Madura Mills Co. Ltd. During the chargeable accounting period, 13th April, 1944 to 12th April, 1945, they received from their customers a sum of Rs. 7,69,569 as security deposits and the question that has to be decided is whether this sum is 'borrowed money' within the meaning of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »