Chennai Court April 1956 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.
Tamarind Products, Vellore and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad20; [1956]30ITR348(Mad)
1. Though the questions were referred to this Court under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act on the application of the assessee, he was absent all through, both before the Tribunal and before us. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the decision of Chakravartti C. J. and Lahiri J. in M.M. Isphani Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, W.B., : [1955]27ITR188(Cal) (A) and invited us to record that we refrain from answering the questions referred to us on the short ground that the assessee defaulted appearance.2. We respectfully agree with the learned Chief Justice, that the apparent mandatory language of Section 66(5), which requires that the Court shall decide the questions of law raised in a case referred to it under Section 66(1), is no bar to a refusal to answer the questions should the circumstances of the case necessitate it. The conclusion of the learned Chief Justice in M. M. Isphani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profjts Tax, : [1955]27ITR188(Cal) (A) Was,'It appears to ...
Soundararajan and Co. Ltd. Vs. A.K. Sankarapandia Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: 1958CriLJ197
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In 1954 Soundararajan and Co. Ltd., filed O. S. No. 1594 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to recover a sum or Rs. 13d8-2-6 with interest and costs from Sankarapandia Nadar. In an affidavit filed by the manager of Messrs. Soundararajan and Ca. Ltd., in Appln No. 20 of 1956 it is alleged that the suit was peremptorily posted for final disposal on 15-11-1955 and that on the respondent's representation that his wife was ill the suit was adjourned to 30-11-1955.Alter having obtained an adjournment of the suit from the City Civil Court on this ground Sankarapandia Nadar filed I. P. Ill of 1955 before this Court on 29-11-1955 to get himself adjudicated insolvent, and this was done on the same day. On 30-11-1955 this fact was reported to the City Civil Court with the result that the suit was not proceeded with.2. After he was adjudicated insolvent Sankarapandia Nadar was examined on oath by the Official Assignee. lie then stated 'For the last fo...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ306
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The limited question that arises in this application, preferred by the Government under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act is whether the arecanuts sold by the respondent in the assessment year 1951-1952 constituted agricultural or horticultural produce grown by (the assessee) himself or grown on any land in which he had an interest, whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2(i) of the Act.2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rejected the accounts of the petitioner and estimated the turnover of the cured nuts sold by the petitioner during 1951-52-at Rs. 40,736 and assessed him to a tax of Rs. 636-8-0 on that turnover. An appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer failed. The assessee took the matter up on further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that he was not a 'dealer' at all as defined by the Act. The Tribunal, however, accepted the cont...
In Re: State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ238
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. These are petitions presented by the State under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act against the decision of the appellate tribunal which held that the arecanut sold by the assessee, all of whom belonged to the South Kanara District, was a horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act.2. In our judgment in T.R.C. No. 22 of 1955 State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10, which has just been delivered, we pointed out the difference in the process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara District and those of Coimbatore District in preparing the arecanuts for sale. The process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara involves much less than that adopted by those of Coimbatore District State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10 was concerned with the processing to which the horticulturists of Coimbatore subjected the arecanuts. All that is done in South Kanara is to gather the arecanut, peel and dr...
Mettur Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad362; [1956]7STC691(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. Messrs. Mettur Industries Ltd., are the petitioners in this tax revision case. These proceedings arose out of the assessment for the year 1951-52. The Deputy Commercial tax Officer, ascertained the net assessable turnover of this assesses at Rs. 2,40,87,084-0-7. Objections were taken to this assessment by the assessee and an appeal was filed to the Commercial-tax Officer, but that appeal was dismissed. The objections were repeated in a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. 2. The objections taken, by the assessee fell under three heads; (1) a sum of Rs. 23,66,029 claimed to be the turnover arising from inter-State sales, the exemption claimed being under Article 286(2) of the Constitution; (2) Rs. 19,41,362 being the turnover on the purchase value of cotton purchased, by the mills from Messrs. Volkart Bros.; and (3) Rs. 2,24,517 being the sales-tax collections made by the appellant, to the inclusion of which in the assessable turnover objection was ...
State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad661; [1956]7STC541(Mad)
1. The limited question that arises in this application, preferred by the Government Under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act is whether the arecanuts sold by the respondent in the assessment year 1951-52 constituted "agricultural or horticultural produce grown by (the assessee) himself or grown on any land which he had an interest, whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Act.2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer rejected the accounts of the petitioner and estimated the turnover of the cured nuts' sold by the petitioner, during 1951-52 at Rs. 40,736 and assessed him to a tax of Rs. 636-8-0 on that turnover. An appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer failed. The assessee took the matter up on further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that he was not a "dealer" at all as defined by the Act. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contentions of the assess...
In Re: State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad664; [1956]7STC546(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. These are petitions presented by the State under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, which held that the arecanwt sold by the assesses, all of whom belonged to the South Kanara district, was a horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Act.2. In our judgment in State of Madras v. Saravana Filial, TRC No. 22 of I955: : AIR1957Mad661 (A), which has just been delivered, we pointed out the difference in the process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara district and those of Coimbatore district in preparing the arecanuts for sale. The process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara involves much less than that adopted by those of Coimbatore district. T. B. C. No. 22 of 1955: : AIR1957Mad661 (A), was concerned with the processing to which the horticulturists of Coimbatore subjected the arecauuts.All that is done in South Kanara is to gather the arecamit, peel and dry the kern...
P. Murugayya Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Somasundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad100
Govinda Menon, J.1. I agree with my learned brother in the conclusion arrived at by him that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the agreement set up by him and, there-fore, there is no reason whatever to hold that the business in cocoanuts and plantains run in the vilasam of the third defendant from 1939 was a continuation of the old family business.2. On the question of law raised with regard to the burden of proof in a case like this where the person liable to account is not alive at the lime the account has to be taken and his legal representative in view of the inheritance of his property has to render accounts, it seems to me that there is an initial burden on the plaintiff who asks for accounts to show that the individual liable to account has not discharged his burden in regard to Sums of money that have come into his hands. Where the principal uses his agent for rendition of accounts and the burden falls upon the legal representative of the agent what is to he the onus:Sp...
The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ343
ORDER1. This petition preferred by the Government, under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, arose out of proceedings taken under the Act, to assess the turnover of the respondent for the year, 1950-51. The assessee did not file any return of his turnover for 1950-51 within the time prescribed. After other proceeding's had been taken by the assessing authorities, he voluntarily, submitted a return of his turnover on 20th February, 1954. That return, supported by the entries in his account books, was accepted by the assessing authorities, and on 11th March, 1954 the respondent was assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 18,651-13-9. That assessment was confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal. But on further appeal by the assessee the tribunal held that the assessment fell within the scope of Rule 17(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, and that the assessment made on nth March, 1954, was barred by the period of limitation prescribed by the rule. The view of the...
M.P.V. Sundararama Iyer and Company Vs. V.V.C.R. Murugesa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad228
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No, 113 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court. Madurai are the appellants in Appeal No. 127 of 1952 and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 31. of 1950 on the file of the same court is the appellant in Appeal No. $33 of 1952.The subject matter of these two suits related to cross claims and as such, in this judgment the plaintiffs in O. S. No. US of 1946 who are the defendants in O. S. No. 31 of 1950 will be known as the plaintiffs appellants and vice versa the defendant in p. S. No. 118 of 1946 who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 31 of 1950 will be known as the defendant respondent. The facts which have given rise, to these proceedings can be summarised Efliortly in the following way: There were five contracts evidenced by Exs. A-l ,to A-5 entered into between the parties by which on the whole 133 bales of cotton yarn were agreed to be purchased by the plaintiffs for which purpose a sum of Us. 10,560-8-0 was advanced to the defendant. On the ground that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »