Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad47; [1955]28ITR235(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred for our decision is :'Whether the loss of Rs. 9,720 is an admissible deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for 1948-49 assessment year ?'It is necessary to set out a few facts to understand the question at issue. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of handloom cloth, and the present assessment proceedings relate to the assessment year 1948-49, the account year being 1st which ended on 31st March, 1948. On 14th March, 1946, the Government of Madras Promulgated the Madras Cotton Cloth and Apparel Export Control Order, 1946, under rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules. Clause (4) of this Order provided :'No person shall on or after 19th February, 1946, transport or cause to be transported cloth or apparel from any place within the limits of the Province of Madras to any place in India outside the said limits except under an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad665; [1955]25CompCas283(Mad); (1955)2MLJ535
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Subordinate Judge of Salem.2. The plaintiff purchased 2030 shares of the Salem Rajendra Mills Ltd., (defendant 1 in the suit and respondent herein) and applied to have the same transferred in his name. As the transfer was refused, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to have his name entered in the books of the company as transferee of the above shares and also asked for a mandatory injunction directing defendant 1 to enter his name in the books of the company. The plaintiff purchased the shares from defendants 2 and 3 and therefore they were also added as parties. The other defendants were added as pro forma parties. This appeal is only against defendant 1 in the suit.3. The circumstances which led to the refusal of the transfer and which resulted in the suit are these. The plaintiff and one Karimuthu Thyagaraja Chettiar entered into a. partnership in 1939 for the purpose of ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad718
1. This revision petition involves a question of some importance on which no direct authority was cited to us. A decree was passed by a Panchayat Court on 20-11-1937. That decree was transferred to the court of the Additional District Munsif of Tellicherry for execution. There were several execution applications, and on 28-6-1951, the execution petition out of which this revision petition arises was filed. It is common ground that the petition was not barred under Article 182 of Schedule I, Limitation Act.But objection was taken by the judgment debtor that the petition was hatred by reason of Section 48, C. P. C. The learned District Munsif overruled the objection, holding that Section 48, C. P. C. did not apply. There was an appeal to the District Judge, who confirmed the decision of the District Munsif. It is to revise this order of the learned District Judge that the above civil revision petition was filed. This petition came up , before me, sitting alone, and as counsel represented...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ36
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in W.P. No. 818 of 1953 which was filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Additional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras, in R.P. No. 45 of 1953 on appeal from the order of the Deputy Registrar of Chittoor, dated 24th August, 1953. The 1st appellant is a limited liability company with its registered office at Chittoor. The 2nd appellant is its Managing Agent. The 1st respondent is a Co-operative Society formed under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932. The 1st respondent, entered into a contract with the 1st appellant, the terms of which were embodied in an agreement dated 7th July, 1952, under which the 1st appellant granted to the 1st respondent the Sole Selling Agency in respect of raw groundnut oil and cake in the district of Chittoor. The only terms of this agreement whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1956CriLJ244
Mack, J. 1. The appellant, a Mopla, has been found guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. of the murder of his wife, Pathu, aged 25, on 20-8-1954 sometime between 9-30 p.m. and 11-45 p.m., and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of North Malabar.2. The facts of this case are very tragic, the murder being founded really on desperate poverty, the evidence showing no unchastity or even any suspicion of it on the part of this wife. The body was found on the bench of an aided elementary school in Badagara at 7 a.m. the following morning by a school teacher, P.W. 1, with ghastly wounds on her neck which have been proved to have been caused by a small pen knife M. O. 9.There was an incised wound 8' x 4' x 3' across and around portion of the neck cutting the muscles, veins, arteries, nerves and trachea. There was another wound 10' x 5' x 2-1/2' from the middle of the neck to the left side cutting all structures. There was also two comparatively minor incised wounds.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad653; [1955]28ITR231(Mad); (1955)2MLJ440
1. The question referred to this court under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922, ran: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on T. P. S. Hariram Sait in respect of the return filed for the assessment year 1943-44."2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this question lie in a short compass. T. P. Sokkalal Ram Sait and his minor son Hariram Sait constituted a Hindu-undivided family. Sokkalal carried on a lucrative business in beedi manufacture. All along he was assessed to income-tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family, which consisted of himself and his minor son. Sokkalal Sait died on 22-6-1942. After his death, for the accounting period which ended with 16-8-1942 the guardians ot Hariram Sait, who was still a minor submitted the return to the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer found that there had been suppression of income. In addition to the income-tax levied on the basis of the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad714; [1955]28ITR405(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assesses (firm) was the Managing Agent of the Janardhana Mills Ltd. from 1934. In 1941 and 1942 the assesses purchased. 5.25 acres of land adjacent to the mill premises under four sale deeds. One of these stood in the name of V. G. Raja, but the assessee admitted all through that it was a benami purchase, and that the assessed was the owner of that plot of land also. The purchase price of Rs. 8713 for the four sale deeds was paid out of the funds of the assessee. The entire extent of 5.25 acres was sold to Janardhana Mills under two sale deeds dated respectively 1-9-1947 and 10-11-1947. The sale proceeds, Rs. 52,606, were credited to the assessee's account in their books. Rs. 43,887 which constituted the difference between the purchase price and the sale price, was treated as the income from an adventure in the nature of trade and was assessed to tax in the assessment year 1948-49. The Tribu-nal ultimately confirmed that assessment. On the application of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad101; [1956]7STC1(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a revision by the assessees against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and it relates to the assessment year 1951-52. This petition raises for consideration the proper construction of Rule 16(3) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. The assessees were licensed tanners and dealers in hides and skins. For the assessment year the assessees returned a gross turnover of Rs. 2,55,181-14-6 but claimed that no part of this turnover was liable to be taxed. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer examined and scrutinised the accounts of the assessees and found that during this year they had purchased 17,097 raw hides and had sold out of their tannery 26,882 1/2 tanned hides for Rs. 4,32,278-10-5. The assessing authority found that the assessees had effected the purchase of these raw hides outside the State with the result that no tax was payable on the purchase price of this quantity of untanned hides and skins under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1955]28ITR669(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Of the questions that were referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the two that remain for determination are :-(I) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance by the Excess Profits Tax authorities of the commission paid to branch managers is justified under rule 12 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act and(2) Whether the commission payment to the branch managers, assistant managers and other employees is an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business ?By its order dated 11th January, 1954, (the judgment has been reported in Rayaloo Iyer and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax) this Court directed the Tribunal to submit a further and better statement of the case with reference to these two questions. The Court pointed out that, despite the frame of the questions, the second of the questions had really to be dealt with under section 10(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act and not under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1955]28ITR952(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question of law referred for our decision is 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 1,46,000 to the assessable income of the company was correct.'A few facts are necessary to appreciate the point involved in the reference and of these the following are not in controversy.The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of yarn. It is managed by a firm of managing agents by name Kulli Chetti and Brothers. The reference is concerned with assessment year 1944-45, the accounting year being the calendar year 1943. A scrutiny of the books of account of the company disclosed a turnover of yarn in that year of Rs. 41,50,209. Out of these it was found that sales to three parties totaling Rs. 17,90,624 had been affected at much below the market rates prevailing on the dates of the sale transaction. The three parties in w...
Tag this Judgment!