Chennai Court September 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.
Rasipuram Union Motor Service Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ604
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act ran:Whether the appeals for assessment years 1946-47 to 1949-50 were presented within the prescribed time to the Tribunal.2. The facts were not in dispute. The appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeals preferred by the assessee with reference to the assessment years in question. The orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were dated 5th November 1950 and a copy of that order was communicated to the assessee on 25th November, 1950. It was certified by the Assistant Commissioner to be a true copy of his order. On 29th November, 1950, the assessee applied to the Assistant Commissioner for a certified copy of the order, dated 5th November, 1950, and he also applied for the issue of the forms for preferring an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, dated 5th November, 1950. Simultaneously the assessee applied to the Income-tax Offic...
V.N.M. Arunachala Nadar Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ17
ORDER1. We consider it desirable to dispose of the questions, which constitute the subject-matter of these two references by a single order, though, of course, each set of questions has to be answered with reference to the circumstances under which they arise. We shall deal first with R.C. No. 68 of 1953.R. C. No. 68 of 1953.-The question that was referred under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act ran:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?2. Arunachala Nadar was the Kartha of the Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his ten sons. Four of these sons, Ayyamperumal, Ratnasa-bhapathi, Dorairaj and Rajamanickam, were Arunachala's sons by his first wife. All of them were adults in 1942. The six sons by the second wife were still minors. It was this Hindu undivided family that was the assessee up to the assessment year 1942-1943. The asses...
V.N.M. Arunachala Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad458; [1957]32ITR222(Mad)
1. We consider it desirable to dispose of the questions, which constitute the subject-matter of these two references by a single order, though, of course, each set of questions has to be answered with reference to the circumstances under which they arise. We shall deal first with R.C. No. 68 of 1953.R. C. No. 68 of 1953.-The question that was referred under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act ran:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?2. Arunachala Nadar was the Kartha of the Hindu undivided family which consisted of himself and his ten sons. Four of these sons, Ayyamperumal, Ratnasa-bhapathi, Dorairaj and Rajamanickam, were Arunachala's sons by his first wife. All of them were adults in 1942. The six sons by the second wife were still minors. It was this Hindu undivided family that was the assessee up to the assessment year 1942-1943. The assessee f...
In Re: Kelloth Ibrahim Haji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad699
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Badagara in K. I. A. No. 517 of 1936 in O. S. No. 339 of 1955.2. The facts are:-- The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the properties shown in the plaint. The properties, it is alleged, originally belonged to one Moideenkutti who died about 20 years ago. Plaintiff alleges that he has obtained a share in the property by virtue of an assignment from some of the legal representatives of the said Moideenkutti, Defendants 8, 10 and 11 also claim shares in the property by virtue of assignments executed in their favour by certain persons who are also stated to be some of the legal representatives of the said Moideenkutti. Therefore, these defendants preferred R. I. A. No. 517 of 1956 in the lower Court contending that in view of the fact that there is keen dispute between the parties regarding the shaves, regarding devol...
Annamalai (Minor) by P.R.A.L.M.M. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ178
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-Tax Act, ' Whether the payment of Malayan Estate Duty of Rs. 3,29,746 is a proper deduction out the earlier unassessed profits of the assessee from 1st April, 1933 ', arose out of the assessment proceedings for the year 1949-50, the corresponding previous year having ended on 12th April, 1949.2. The headquarters of the business which the assessee's family carried on was at Paganeri in Ramanathapuram district, and it had branches in Burma and Singapore among other places. The accepted basis for assessing the Hindu undivided family, of which the assessee Annamalai was a member, was that it was resident and ordinarily resident. In the year of account that ended on 12th April, 1949, the assessee received as remittances from abroad a total sum of Rs. 1,25,238 out of which Rs. 1,25,034 came from Singapore and the balance of Rs. 204 from Burma. Rs. 80,652 represented the profits that had accrued to the ass...
Annamalai (Minor) by Pr. Al. M. M. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR186(Mad)
Judgment of the Court was delivered byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this Court under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 'whether the payment of Malayan estate duty of R. 3,29,746 is a proper deduction out of the earlier unassessed profits of the assessee from 1st April, 1933' arose out of the assessment proceedings for the year 1949-1950, the corresponding previous year having ended on 12th April, 1949.The headquarters of the business which the assessees family carried on was at Paganeri in Ramanathapuram district, and it had branches in Burma and Singapore among other places. The accepted basis for assessing the Hindu undivided family, of which the assessee Annamalai was a member, was that it was resident and ordinarily resident. In the year of account that ended on 12th April, 1949, the assessee received as remittances from abroad a total sum of Rs. 1,25,238 of which Rs. 1,25,034 came from Singapore and the balance of Rs. 204 from Burma. Rs. 80,652 represented the pro...
Annamalai by Pr. Al. M.M. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad592
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 'Whether the payment of Malayan Estate Duty of Rs. 3,29,746 is a proper deduction out of the earlier unassessed profits of the assessee from 1-4-1933', arose out of the assessment proceedings for the year 1949-50, the corresponding previous year having ended on 12-4-1949.2. The headquarters of the business which the assessee's family carried on was at Paganeri in Ramanathapuram district, and it had branches in Burma and Singapore among other places. The accepted basis for assessing the Hindu undivided family, of which the assessee Annamalai was a member, was that it was resident and ordinarily resident. In the year of account that ended on 12-4-1949 the assessee received as remittances from abroad a total sum of Rs. 1,25,238 of which Rs. 1,25,034 came from Singapore and the balance of Rs. 204 from Burma. Rs. 80,652 represented the profits that had accrued to the assessee at Singapore in th...
M.P.M.R.M.N. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. M.P.M.R.M.N. Narayanan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad158
ORDERRajamannar, C.J.1. This revision petition relates to the proper court-fee levjable on an original suit No. 3ft of 1951 filed in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai.2. The controversy is regarding one of the reliefs prayed for in the suit, which was mainly for a partition of alleged joint family properties, via, that a prior partition decree may be declared null and void and not -binding on the plaintiff.The plaintiff, in addition to paying a court-fee of Rs. 100 Under Article 17-B, Schedule II of the Court-fees Act for the relief of partition and a court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0 on the relief of accounting valued at Rs. 100 paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 for the re-lief of declaration prayed for in respect of the prior partition decree under Art, 17-B of the Court-fees Act.On an objection by the Court-fee examiner, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that this relief would fall under Section 7, Clause (iv-A) of the Act as amended in Madras and directed the plaintiff ...
B.G.P. Lorry Service Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad255
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. The order now sought to be restrained and quashed is for the recovery of a sum which was decreed to a claimant in regard to workmen's compensation. The only dependant entitled to make a claim was the widow of the deceased worker and sought recovery of the amount due to her under the statute before the Commissioner. An order was passed on 20th December 1954 determining the compensation payable at Rs. 1200 together with Rs. 14 for costs. 2. This amount the petitioner paid in person to the widow the sole claimant on 23rd April 1955, and it is not in dispute, that the money was paid and the claim thus discharged. 3. Proceedings were however taken by the Commissioner in May 1955, against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum once again on the ground that a payment to the claimant was not a discharge, and that under Section 8, until the amount is deposited the liability to pay persists. 4. Without entering into the question as to whether the provisions of...
M.P.M.Rm.M.N. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. M.P.M.Rm.M.N. Narayanan Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ608
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This Revision Petition relates to the proper court-fee leviable on an Original Suit No. 36 of 1951 filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai.2. The controversy is regarding one of the reliefs prayed for in the suit, which was mainly for a partition of alleged joint family properties, viz., that a prior partition decree may be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in addition to paying a Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-B, Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act for the relief of partition and a Court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0 on the relief of accounting valued at Rs. 100, paid a court-fee of Rs. 100, for the relief of declaration prayed for in respect of the prior partition decree under Article 17-B of the Court-fees Act. On an objection by the Court-fee examiner the learned Subordinate judge has held that this relief would fall under Section 7, Clause (iv-A) of the Act as amended in Madras and directed the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »