Chennai Court March 1951 Judgments
Parry and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax Excess P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad55; [1951]20ITR504(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question for decision:'Whether in the circumstances of the case and under the provisions of the Excess Profits tax Act, a portion of the capital cost of the buildings proportionate to the portion of the business premises leased to others could be excluded from the computation of capital employed in the business of the company.'The chargeable accounting period with which we are now concerned in this reference is the period from 1-1-1944 to 31-12-1944. The relevant facts appear in the statement of the case and are not seriously in dispute. The assessee company had an old building known as 'Parrys Old building' in which it was carrying on its business. To meet its growing needs and with a view perhaps to expand its business, the construction of a new building now known as 'Dare House' was commenced in 1938 and was completed in 1941 at a cost of Rs. 6,80,000. Out of the amount required for the constr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Damarla Krishnarao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad852; (1951)1MLJ693
ORDERPanchapakesha Ayyar, J.1. This is an extraordinary case The two petnrs., grandfather & grandson, were tried for offences Under Sections 323 & 504, I. P. C. by a Bench of Honorary Mags. at Bapatla. They were convicted & sentenced on 19-4-1950 by two out of the Bench of three, to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each, or, in default, to undergo R. I. for two weeks each, without writing a judgment. The judgment was subsequently written, on 24-4-1950, by the President & Member who pronounced the sentence on 19-4-1950, & sent to the third member, Yelliah, on 24-4-1950, for his opinion. He dissented from the judgment of the other two.2. As argued by learned counsel for the petnr. & agreed to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the President & the other member acted illegally (& not merely irregularly) in convicting & sentencing the petnrs. without even consulting the third member Yelliah & without writing a judgment. A sentence follows a conviction, which is embodied in a judgment. Here the Judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Nidumukkala Venkata Rangayya Vs. V. Narayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ393
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This second appeal is against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada, who in turn reversed the decree of the learned District Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff filed the suit on a contract claiming the difference in the contract price and the market price for non-delivery of the contracted goods. The contract is covered by Exhibit P-1 in the case. The contract was for 700 tins of oil, prepared and expeller white quality at the rate specified therein. The time and place of delivery are also mentioned as also the rate per maund. The first Court held in favour of the plea of the appellant that the contract was a wagering one and therefore dismissed the suit. But on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the contract might be a speculative one but not a wagering one.2. Elaborate arguments have been advanced before me by counsel on both sides and a series of authorities were also cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oruganti Appa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad53; (1951)2MLJ86
ORDERPanchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This matter has been posted before me for orders with reference to additional Court-fee now claimed by the office. The suit was for redemption of four usufructuary mortgages. The mortgages were all executed on the same day, by the same set of mortgagors, in favour of the same mortgagee. They purport to be anomalous (usufructuary) mortgages of the year 1886 for Rs. 8,500, Rs. 2,000, Rs. 2,600 and Rs. 1,500. In the lower Court the Court-fee was made up of the aggregate Court-fee as on four distinct subjects. In the High Court, however, the learned counsel for the appellant totalled up all the amounts due under the four mortgages and paid 'ad valorem' Court-fee on that basis of the total figure. The office had no objection to it in the first instance and the appeal was registered and numbered as A. S. No. 315 of 1950. Sometime later, the office put up a note that the four mortgages must be regarded as four distinct subjects within the meaning of Section 17 o...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Zackariah Sahib, at Sathankulam Vs. the Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad85; [1952]22ITR359(Mad); (1952)2MLJ877
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question referred for decision is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the applicant had a dwelling place maintained for him and was a resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A(a) (ii) in the year of account'.The years of assessment in question are 1941-42 and 1942-43. The facts found by the Tribunal and adverted to in the statement of the case are these. The assessee, a Muhammadan merchant, carried on business in Ceylon and usually resided there. His parents lived at Sathangulam in the Tinnevelly district in a house owned by his mother. The assessee's wife whom he married in 1940 lived some times with his parents and some times with her parents in their respective villages in the Tinnevelly district The assessee was remitting monies now and then to his parents for their maintenance. The assessee visited British India during the years of account and during such visits stayed with his parents in their house a...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. the Mysore Chromite Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad198; [1951]20ITR546(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The Appellate . Tribunal referred the following two questions of law to this Court for decision under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The questions are: '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits derived by the assessee company from sales made to European and American buyers arose outside British India? and '(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits derived by the assessee company from sales made to European and American buyers were received outside British India.'? The assessment years with which we are concerned in this reference are four years - 1939-40, 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The facts are common to the assessment years and therefore it is that a consolidated reference has been made to this Court. The statement of facts by the Appellate Tribunal and the facts as set out in the order of the Tribunal on appeal from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are not in dispute and the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C. Raghava Variar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad885; (1951)1MLJ700
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. As accused 1 was acquitted by theAppellate Ct. of the offence Under Section 8, Madras Gaming Act, though it was admittedly his own house& he permitted the gaming therein, obviously onthe ground that it was not proved to be a common gaming house, 'it follows that all the accusedshould also have been acquitted of the offence Under Section 9, which will apply only to gaming in a common gaming house''. There has been also noappeal against the acquittal of accused 1 regarding Section 8 by the State. So, the reference by theSes. J., North Malabar, is right. When the trunkis cut & falls, the branches will fall by themselves.Though accused 3 & 4 did not appeal, & are notrepresented before me by any counsel (possiblydue to poverty, ignorance of law, despair, etc.)I see no reason why I should reject the reference as regards them alone when there is no difference between their case & the case of accused1 & 2, in law & in fact, & when Order 41, Rule 33,Civil P. C., a...
Tag this Judgment!Revula Subba Rao and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad127; [1951]20ITR337(Mad); (1951)2MLJ424
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. In R. C. Nos. 32 of 1948 and 31 of 1950, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court two questions:1. Whether the word 'personally' in Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, as framed under Section 59 of the Income-tax Act, would exclude a duly authorised agent of a partner from signing an application on behalf of the partner under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether Rules 2 and 6 are not ultra vires the rule making authority? The reference in both the cases arises out of the same facts and relates to the validity of the order made by the Income-tax authorities refusing the application of the assessee firm for renewal of registration of the firm under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act. The applications were made in different years and were refused. Hence these references. 2. The assessee firm consisted of two partners, Rao Bahadur Revula Subba Rao and Hariprasada Rao, Chirala, who ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maniklal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad164; (1952)IIMLJ115
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Manicka Lal, the Madras agent of Hindustan Motors Limited, Calcutta, and the second accused in C. C. Nos. 436, 436 and 437 of 1949 on the file of the third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against his conviction on three counts, regarding the sale of three 'Hindustan Ten' cars at Rs. 9,350 each, as against the controlled price of Rs. 8,195 each under Section 12 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisition (Temporary Powers) Act, read with Clause 6 of the Madras Civil Motor Cars Control Order, 1947. The first accused, the absentee master of the firm, residing at Calcutta, was acquitted, by giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the second accused, the local manager of the firm in Madras, who actually sold the three care in question above the controlled price, was convicted on all the three counts, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each, or Rs. 750 in all, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three mo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vellai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad322; (1951)2MLJ53
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the records and heard Mr. V. Rajagopalachariar, for the petitioner and the State Prosecutor 'contra'. Mr. Rajagopalachariar urged that the lower Court erred in applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to the facts of this case and relied on the ruling of the Privy Council in 'Attyagalle v. The King', 44 Mad L W 86. I have looked into that ruling. It relates to an illegal operation on a woman for abortion by a doctor called Attygalk and says that merely because the doctor was alone with the lady in the same room where the abortion took place, he cannot be asked to prove that he did not perform an illegal operation for abortion on her. But it is obvious that the facts, here, are quite different. A woman usually delivers her own baby or has her own abortion. Any person, even a doctor, present alone with her at 'the time of the abortion, cannot be said to have that fact specially within his knowledge, as she is the person having the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »