Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad560; [1955]28ITR435(Mad)
This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the question referred to our decision being 'Whether the sum of Rs. 28,779 representing remuneration for services rendered is a revenue receipt.'The assessee, T. Sadasivam, is an individual who has succeeded to the business of Chandra Prabha Cinetone, but the entire proceedings have gone on the footing that it was the tax liability of the Chandra Prabha Cinetone that was being adjudicated and in consequence when any reference is made to the assessee, it is the Chandra Prabha Cinetone that is intended.Sri. T. Sadasivam and his wife Srimathi M. S. Subbulakshmi were partners of a firm called Chandra Prabha Cinetone. The firm was started in or about 1939 for the production of a tamil picture called 'Sakunthala'. After the production had gone on for a while and the partners had spent nearly half a lakh of rupees, they found that they could not find the entire finance necessary for completing the picture. Accordingly they entered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad1; [1955]28ITR601(Mad)
These are petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition forbidding the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Second Circle, Madurai, and the Collector of Madurai from proceeding with the collection of penalties levied against the petitioner by the first respondent for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48, the four petitions relating to the four years mentioned above.The petitioner is a yarn dealer. Part of his business consists of exports to Ceylon. For the assessment year 1944-45 he submitted a return to the Income-tax authorities claiming a loss of Rs. 23,891. In regard to the next year, 1945-46, his return disclosed a net profit of Rs. 25,152. The returns in respect of both the years were taken up for consideration together by the then Income-tax Officer, Madurai, Sri Rathnaswami, who came to the conclusion that the returns of the petitioner should not be accepted and that he had deliberately furnished false particulars regarding his income and after maki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad160; 1957CriLJ379
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one K. Srinivasan for setting aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur, in M. C. No. 72 of 1954, holding him to be the father of a male child and a female child' born to P. W. 1, married woman, whose husband, P.,W. 3, Is still alive, and the marriage between whom has not been dissolved, and erdering him to pay maintenance at Rs. 6 per month for each of those children from the date of the petition and also to pay P, W. 1 costs or Rs. 15.2. The facts .are rattier extraordinary P. W; 1, Kirubai .Animal, is an Indian Christian lady aged 32 and a school mistress by profession. Her husband, Asseryatham, P. W. 3, aged 65, is also an Indian Christian and a school master by profession. According to P. W. 1, she married P. W. 3, Asser-vatham in or about 1936, and delivered two male children and a female child to him.She stated that the petitioner, Srintvasan, who was then a constable attached to Tirupattur police station, us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad113; (1956)1MLJ280
ORDERRajagoplan, J.1. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Order of the Government Ms. No. 1086 dated 26th April, 1954.2. The petitioner is a firm, Radhakrishna Mills (Pollachi) Ltd., at Pollachi. The fourth respondent, Ponnai Goundar, was one of the employees of the mills. On 5th October, 1953, the management framed some charges against the fourth respondent. After an enquiry on 7th October, 1953, the fourth respondent was suspended from his office till 15th October, 1953, as a punishment. He resumed office on 16th October, 1953. The fourth respondent alleged that it was a case of victimisation and that he had been unjustly punished. But on 21st October, 1953, he withdrew those allegations and expressed his regret to the management by a letter. On 23rd October, 1953, the fourth respondent revived the allegations of victimisation that he had made and realised from the position he had taken up in the letter s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad662; (1956)IMLJ78
1. The facts of this case are simple. The appellants are a firm of dealers in automobiles carrying on business in Madras. The respondent purchased from them a Hindusthan-10 motor car, fixed head type, for a sum of Rs. 9350 (vide Ex. B. 3) on 22-1-1948. That was at a time when the Madras Civil Motor cars Control Order 1947 was in force, and no type of car could be sold for a price exceeding that fixed by the Government under that order. On the evidence, it is clear that at the time when the contract was entered into, both the plaintiff and the defendants thought that Rs. 9350 was the price fixed under the order for the type of Hindusthan-10 purchased by the plaintiff. This was evidently because of the impression created by a Circular submitted to the Provincial Motor Transport Controller by Messrs. Hindustan Motors Ltd., fixing the price of Hindusthan-10 at Rs. 9350 which pcice was apparently approved and confirmed by the Provincial Motor. Transport Controller.In a letter dated 2-12-194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad699; [1955]28ITR553(Mad); (1955)2MLJ564
1. These two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution were heard together because they raise a common question, namely, whether the production of an Income-tax verification certificate can be made a condition precedent for the entertainment of an application for the grant of an import licence. The provisions relating to this subject are to be gathered from several rules and notifications and public notices made and issued from time to time by the Government.They are contained in a Hand-book of Rules and Procedure relating to Import Trade Control published in 1952 by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and the Import Trade Control Policy issued by the Government of India for different licensing periods. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947, is in the barest terms and contains very little relevant information. Section 3(1) of the Act provides:The Central Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ25
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These three appeals involve common questions and were therefore heard together. They are from three judgments of Rajagopalan, J., disposing of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution filed in the following circumstances: The main judgment was pronounced in W.P. No. 630 of 1954 from which Writ Appeal No. 28 of 1955 has been preferred. We shall, therefore, take that appeal first. The petitioner in W.P. No. 630 of 1954, who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner, sat for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the S.S.L.C.) Examination, held by the Board of Secondary Education, Government of Madras in March, 1952. In due course, the S.S.L.C. book was despatched to him with the marks obtained by him at the Public Examination entered in it, with a rubber stamp certificate, which ran as follows:Certificate completed.Eligible for admission to University courses of studies, Andhra, Madras, or Annamalai UniversitiesA cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ40
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this writ appeal is whether an Election Commissioner appointed to enquire into an election petition filed to set aside an election to a District Municipality has got the power to amend the petition by adding another ground on which the election is sought to be set aside, after the time for presenting the election petition has elapsed. Rajagopalan, J., held that the Election Commissioner has no jurisdiction to order an amendment in such circumstances.2. The facts may be set out very briefly. An election for a seat in the Municipality from Municipal Ward No. 11, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, was held on 16th September, 1952. There were three competing candidates of whom the 1st respondent was declared elected on 29th September, 1952, having secured the largest number of votes. The appellant before us filed an election petition before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, who was the duly constituted Election Commissioner, challenging the validity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ249
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 'whether the litigation expenses of Rs. 12,429 is capital expenditure,' arose out of the proceedings to assess Veerappa Pillai, the proprietor of the Sathi Vilas Bus service, to tax on his income during the accounting year ending with 31st December, 1945, during the assessment year 1946-47.2. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,429 under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. That represented the money he had spent during the year of account in conducting O.S. No. 37 of 1944, which he had filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The claim was disallowed by the taxing authorities, and the Tribunal to which the assessee appealed agreed with them. None of them, however, ever doubted the fact that the assessee had spent the amount.3. Chamundeswari Bus Service had permits to ply five buses from Kumbakonam to Karaikal. The 'G' permits for these vehicles stood in the name of Balasu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1955]28ITR636(Mad)
.RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 'whether the litigation expense of Rs. 12,429 is capital expenditure,' arose out of the proceedings to assess Veerappa Pillai, the proprietor of the Sathi Vilas Bus Service, to tax on his income during the accounting year ending with 31st December, 1945, during the assessment year 1946-47.The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,429 under section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. That represented the money he had spent during the year of account in conducting O. S. No. 37 of 1944, which he had filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The claim was disallowed by the taxing authorities, and the tribunal to which the assessee appealed agreed with them. None of them, however, ever doubted the fact that the assessee had spent the amount.Chamundeswari Bus Service had permits to ply five buses from Kumbakonam to Karaikal. The 'G' permits for these vehicles stood in the name of Balasubram...
Tag this Judgment!