Chennai Court April 1957 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.
V. Vs. R. N. Vr. Nagappa Chettiar V. Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR226(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This is an application for the issue of a wirt of certiorari to quash the certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, by the Income-tax Officer of Karaikudi directing the Collector of Ramanthapuram to collect the arrears of income-tax due by the petitioner and assessed for the years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42.The point that is raised is a very short one, and the question is whether the certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act in regard to these demands were within time. The assessments for the years 1939-40 and 194-41 were completed the relative demand was issued on February 28, 1947. It is now common ground that the certificate for the recovery of this demand under section 46(2) of the Act was issued on March 9, 1947. This is well within the period of one year allowed under the section and is therefore in time.It is in regard to the certificate for the demand for 1941-42 that there is any real controversy between the ...
S.K. Habibullah Vs. the Income-tax Officer, V Circle, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad719; [1957]32ITR369(Mad)
1. The petitioner is the son of the late S. K. Mohideen, hereinafter referred to as the assessee. The assessee was a partner of Dinshaw and Company and of the firm Palaniappa Chettiar (Jupiter Pictures) among other concerns. The assessment of Mohideen for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 was completed on 20th February, 1950. By that date the assessment of the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 and that of Dinshaw and Company, for the years 1946-47 and 1948 had not been completed. Mohideen's assessment was however completed, accepting provisionally his estimates of his share of the losses of those two partnership concerns. The assessec's share of the losses of Dinshaw and Company was shown as Rs. 20,000 for 1946-47 and as Rs. 10,000 for 1947-4.8, and his share of the losses in the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 was shown as Rs. 12,436.2. The assessment of Dinshaw and Company for both the years was completed on 31st October, 1950. As against the Rs. 20,000 provision...
S.K. Habibullah Vs. the Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ191
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is the son of the late S. K. Mohideen, hereinafter referred to as the assessee. The assessee was a partner of Dinshaw and Company and of the firm Palaniappa Chettiar (Jupiter Pictures) among other concerns. The assessment of Mohideen for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 was completed on 20th February, 1950. By that date the assessment of the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 and that of Dinshaw and Company, for the years 1946-47 and 1948 had not been completed. Mohideen's assessment was however completed, accepting provisionally his estimates of his share of the losses of those two partnership concerns. The assessec's share of the losses of Dinshaw and Company was shown as Rs. 20,000 for 1946-47 and as Rs. 10,000 for 1947-4.8, and his share of the losses in the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 was shown as Rs. 12,436.2. The assessment of Dinshaw and Company for both the years was completed on 31st October, 1950. As against the Rs. 2...
Sree Rajendra Mills Limited and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad220; [1957]32ITR439(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - These four petitions are directed to challenge the validity of a notice issued to the respective petitioners under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This section was introduced by the Amending Act XXXIII of 1954, and one of the points raised in these petitions is as regards the constitutional validity of this amending provision.We shall state a few preliminary facts before dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Rajendra Mills Ltd., Salem, are the petitioners in W.P. No. 307 of 1955, the Meenakshi Mills Ltd., at Madurai are the petitioners in W. P. No. 308 of 1955 while W. P. No. 309 of 1955 is by the Saroja Mills Ltd., Coimbatore, and these three mills are managed by Sri Karumuttu Thiagarajan Chettiar, who has a controlling interest in each of these three companies; and Sri Thyagarajan Chettiar as an individual is the petitioner in W.P. No. 310 of 1955. For the assessment years 1940-41 to 1946-47 the several p...
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division Vs. K.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC590(Mad)
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this case the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found definitely that the assessee did maintain a separate anamath chittai and the major portion of the purchases of yarn as noted in the chittai was not proved to have been entered in the regularly maintained books. They estimated the turnover suppressed by this method at about Rs. 30,000. Nevertheless the Tribunal took the view that there was no justification for the action of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in depriving the assessee of the benefits of the licence. In their own opinion there was no breach of the conditions of the licence. In their view so far as the regularly maintained accounts were concerned, the assessees should have been granted the benefits of the licence. In the result they held that the turnover as disclosed in the regularly maintained books should be exempted from taxation but as regards the estimated turnover as per the anamath chittai the assessees were not entitled to the benefit and they w...
Public Prosecutor Vs. M.A.R.S. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad771; 1957CriLJ1421; (1958)IIMLJ23
1. This appeal is by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Sub Magistrate, Karaikudi, in O. C. No, 2626 of 1955 on the file.2. The respondent was keeping a printing press in the downstairs portion of a building which comprised T. S. Nos. 16, 17 and 19 to 22, Ward No. 12, within the limits of the Karaikudi Municipality. That Street had been declared under Sec. 89(1) of the Madras Public Health Act, Act in of 1939, as a residential area. The accused, i.e., the respondent herein, applied to the Commissioner of the Municipality for permission to run the printing machines by installing two 1/2 H.P. electric motors. He has stated in his application that he was employing human labour for driving the printing machine and doing the printing work and that with a view to make it easy for the workmen' he decided to operate the machine with the help of electricity and so was applying for permission to instal the two 1/2 H. P. electric motors.Incidentally, he has also mentioned in th...
The Bank of Hindustan Ltd., (In Liquidation) by Its Joint Official Liq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad702
1. This is an appeal by the Bank of Hindustan Ltd (now in liquidation) by its Joint Official Liquidators, the Official Receiver of this court and Messrs. Brahmayya and Co., the first defendant in C. S. No. 525 of 1948 and application No. 1229 of 1051 on the file of this court, against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder J. declaring that the plaintiffs, Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao and the Indian Commerce and Industries Co, Ltd, represented by him as governing director, were entitled to have their names, which stood registered in the books of the appellant company, as holders and owners, cancelled and omitted in respect of 1608 partly paid up shares of Rs. 90 each (only Rs. 40 out of each share having been paid up) standing registered in the name of the first plaintiff and of 60 other similar shares standing registered in the name of the second plaintiff in the hooks of the company, and directing the name of the second defendant, Saraf, to be registered as the holder and owner of ...
Bank of Hindustan Ltd., (In Liquidation) by Its Joint Official Liquida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ517
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Bank of Hindustan Ltd., (now in liquidation) by its Joint Official Liquidators, the Official Receiver of this Court and Messrs. Brahmayya and Co., the first defendant in C.S. No. 525 of 1948 and Application No. 1229 of 1951 on the file of this Court, against the Judgment and Decree of Ramaswami Gounder, J., declaring that the plaintiffs, Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao and the Indian Commerce and Industries Co., Ltd., represented by him as governing director, were entitled to have their names, which stood registered in the books of the appellant company, as holders and owners, cancelled, and omitted in respect of 1608 partly paid up snares of Rs. 90 each (only Rs. 40 out of each share having been paid up) standing registered in the name of the first plaintiff, and of 60 other similar shares standing registered in the name of the second plaintiff in the books of the company, and directing the name of the second defendant, Saraf, to be registere...
Ganapathi Muthiriyar Vs. Narayanaswami Vaithiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad405; 1957CriLJ761
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, was also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate up to 1-1-1955, when the Judiciary was separated from the Executive in that district. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer was a First Class Magistrate ex-officio, with territorial jurisdiction over his revenue division.2. There were disputes over the possession of an extent of 7.04 acres of land, which constituted the subject-matter of M. C. No. 63 of 1954 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musiri, under Section 145, Crl. P. C. After an inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered under Section 146 (1), Crl. P. C., that the lands should remain under attachment until a competent civil Court had determined the rights of parties to that land. Subsequently, on 6-2-1955, the Revenue Divisional Officer, as a Magistrate of the First Class ex-officio who had jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 145 and Section 146, Crl. P. C., directed the appointment of the village munsif of Nerin...
In Re: the State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary Home Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad692
1. We are in entire agreement with Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., against whose order this appeal has been filed by Government, that it is incumbent on the officer purporting to cancel the gun licence to first inform the licensee the grounds on which the cancellation is proposed and also to record in writing the grounds on which the cancellation is eventually made. This order must be communicated to the licensee, particularly because he has got a right of appeal against the order of cancellation and he cannot properly put forward his contentions before the appellate tribunal, until he knows why the cancellation is made. The early decision of Subba Rao J. in Narasimha Reddi v. Dt. Magistrate Cuddepah, (A), lays down the correct principle to be followed in passing orders of cancellation, and, so far as we are aware, that principle has never been doubted. Rajagopala Ayyangar J. has only followed that principle and applied it to the facts before him. The observations of Rajagopalan J. in W. P No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »