Chennai Court February 1956 Judgments
State of Madras by Collector of Coimbatore Vs. H. Kanchilal, by Power- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ205
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the decree of the lower Courts holding that the assessment of the sales-tax at the enhanced rate of 4 pies in the rupee in respect of the turnover of the sweet-stall of the plaintiff is not legal and that the State is not entitled to levy the tax at that rate. The decision was given by the learned District Munsif of Coimbatore and confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore.2. The respondent has been running an establishment by name Ananda Bhavan in Big Bazaar Road, Coimbatore. The establishment consists of a restaurant section, pan beedi shop section, locks section and sweet-stall. We are now concerned only with the restaurant section and the sweet-stall, as the turnover of the pan beedi section and locks section are not sought to be assessed at the enhanced rate of 4 pies in the rupee under the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act. All the four lines of business are conducted i...
Tag this Judgment!Ar. Pl. Spl. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ137
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arises out of the proceedings taken under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act to revise the assessment for the assessment year 1942-43. The accounting year ended on 12th April, 1942.2. The assessee, an undivided Hindu joint family of the community of Nattukottai Chettiars, had several sources of business income in Burma, Malaya and Indo-China. Towards the end of the accounting year, these places were occupied by enemy forces, and means of communication were cut off. When the assessee submitted its return of income, it was not in a position to give any definite information about its income from its businesses outside the taxable territories. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for 1942-43 on 18th September, 1942, with the observation:The assessee has furnished a return without taking into account the income from the sole and joint business outside British India as those businesses ar...
Tag this Judgment!T. Appavu Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad474; (1956)2MLJ201
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-Tax Act was: 'whether the sum of Rs. 31,250 was rightly taxed?'2. The assessee held ten shares of the face value of Rs. 8,750 in the Sri Kannan Rice Mills, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company. The subscribed capital of the company was Rs. 43,750 most of which was apparently spent on the acquisition of a rice mill. The comdany went into liquidation on 31st July, 1947; the liquidator sold the assets of the company the same day and realised Rs. 2,10,000. The realisations were distributed between the shareholders on 1st April, 1947. The assessee received for his share Rs. 40,000. Rs. 31,250 the difference between the capital he had subscribed and the share of the assets he received on liquidation was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year, 1947-48. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 12th April, 1947. The accounting year of the company was 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947.3....
Tag this Judgment!Methala Veluthedath Raghavan Nair and anr. Vs. Palakunnath Kozhikkal A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ534
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The 2nd respondent m this appeal is the mortgagee-decree-holder. The 3rd respondent is the mortgagor while the first respondent is the auction purchaser. Respondents 4 and 5 are sub-kanamdars under the 3rd respondent. The petitioners are the assignee of the respondents 4 and 5. After a decree was passed against the mortgagor, the decree-holder brought the rights of the mortgagor in the kanam to sale and they were purchased by the first respondent in the Court auction. After the purchase the first respondent managed to take actual possession of the property without reference to the rights of the respondents 4 and 5, since assigned to the appellants. From the judgment of the learned District Munsif the following facts can be gathered. In the suit, respondents 4 and 5 were ex parte. In the execution proceeding they appeared and filed a counter and stated that a portion of the A-schedule property was in the actual possession of the 5th respondent as per a sub-dem...
Tag this Judgment!Jivaraj Topun and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad475; [1956]30ITR18(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this Court under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act was 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the determination of the loss of the last chargeable accounting period (5th November, 1945, to 31st March, 1946) at Rs. 4,622 on the proportionate time basis is in accordance with law'This question arose out of proceedings to assess the excess profits tax the assessee was liable to pay for the chargeable accounting period 5th November, 1945, to 31st March, 1946, on which date the liability to excess profits tax came to an end. The according period of the assessee for purposes of income-tax was the Samvat year, 5th November, 1945, to 24th October, 1946, of which the chargeable according period for excess profit tax was a portion. The assessee claimed that the profit and loss statement he had prepared for the period 5th November, 1945, to 31st March, 1946, proved that he had sustained a loss of Rs. 25,307-2-11 during that period ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Appavu Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: [1956]29ITR768(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act was : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 31,250 was rightly taxed.'assessee held ten shares of the face value of Rs. 8,750 in Sri Kannan Rice Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company. The subscribed capital of the company was Rs. 43,750 most of which was apparently spent on the acquisition of a rice mill. The company went into liquidation on March 31, 1947; the liquidator sold the assets of the company th same day and realised Rs. 2,10,000. The realisations were distributed between the shareholders on April 1, 1947. The assessee received for his share Rs. 40,000. Rupees 31,250 the difference between the capital he had subscribed and the share of the assets he received on liquidation was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1947-48. The accounting year of the assessee ended on April 12, 1947. The accounting year of the company was April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1947.The Tribunal held tha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Amir Sultan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad796; 1957CriLJ1424
Somasundaram, J. 1. Accused 1 to 5 in S. C. No. 67of 1955, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Timchirapalli, are the appellants herein. C. A. No. 466 of 1955 is by accused 3 to 5; C. A. No. 478 of 1955 is by accused 1; and C. A. No. 491 of 1955 is by accused 2. They were tried under five charges: the first was against all of them under Section 120-B, I. P. C., for an offence of conspiracy in that they conspired together to fabricate import permits for denatured spirit, purporting to have been issued by the Assistant. Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam, and to transport them via .Tiruchirapalli to Travancore and Cochin State, the second was against the first accused for an offence under Section 467, I. P. C., for having forged the permit Ex. P-10, purported to have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Kottayam; the third was against the second accused under Section 471, read with Section 467, J. P. C., for having used this Ex. P-10 as genuiiie knowing it to be forged;the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad659; [1956]7STC708(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two appeals are against the decrees in two suits on the original side of this Court-C.S. No. 446 of 1947 and C.S. No. 370 of 1950. Louis Dreyfus and Co., Ltd., a dealer on a large scale in groundnuts, is the plaintiff in both these suits which were against the State of Madras, the relief sought being the refund of sales tax stated to have been collected improperly and illegally from them.2. The earlier suit, C. S. No. 446 of 1947, relates to the assessment year 1944-45 and claims the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,933-0-5 as the amount illegally exacted from the plaintiffs. This suit has been decreed in plaintiffs' favour and O.S.A. No. 62 of 1951, is the appeal by the State against the decree against them. The, claim in the other suit was for obtaining a refund of Rs. 87,419-14-4, stated to have been unlawfully collected from the plaintiffs as sales tax for the assessment year 1945-46. This suit having been dismissed, the aggrieved plaintiffs have preferre...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Madras Vs. Louis D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ327
1. The question of law which has been referred for consideration of the Full Bench is:Whether Rule 14 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules is valid and if so, whether the powers, of revision thereunder can be exercised in cases to which Rule 17 relating to escaped assessment is applicable?2. In view of the fact that the appeals themselves will be posted for final disposal after the receipt of the opinion of the Full Bench on the question of law formulated by the referring Judges we do not propose to deal in any detail with the facts of either of these cases but merely answer the legal question propounded in the order of reference.3. The following facts, however, have to be set out to understand the complaint of the assessees. Both the suits out of which these appeals arise were filed by the assessees for the refund of sales tax paid by them as a result of re-assessment in the exercise of revisional powers and in each of them the assessees have succeeded. O.S.A. No. 62 of 1951 relates ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Govindaswamy Naidu Vs. the Tanjore Palace Devasthanam Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ260
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal by leave, from the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in S.A. No. 819 of 1945 and reported in Govindaswami Naidu v. T.P. Devasthanam (1954) 2 M.L.J. 702, which raises the question as to whether the appellant has occupancy rights in the lands which are the subject-matter of the Second Appeal.2. The material facts have been sufficiently elaborately stated in the judgment under appeal and so do not require reiteration except for the purpose of appreciating the legal question discussed hereunder. Summary Suit No. 37 of 1942 was filed by the appellant under Section 35 of the Madras Estates Land Act for the grant of a patta against the respondent. The Tanjore Palace Devasthanam is represented by its hereditary trustee Sri Rajaram Rajah Saheb. The appellant who was a lessee from the respondent for a period of one year of the lands in question claimed that they have become an estate under the Madras Act XVIII of 1936 as a result of which he was entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »