Chennai Court May 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.
S.V. Veerappan Chettiar (Died) and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ286
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The petitioners, Veerappan Chettiar and Angidi Chettiar, along wih two others Ramaswami and Sundaram, constituted a firm with the vilasam Messrs. S.V. Veerappa Chettiar and Co. The firm was registered under Section 29-A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49, and 1949-50. The partnership was dissolved with effect from 13th April, 1951, and notice of the impending dissolution was given to the Income-tax Officer on 10th April, 1951.2. For the three assessment years mentioned above the assessee was the registered firm. The assessment for 1947-48 was completed on 22nd March, 1950, that for 1948-49, on 28th September, 1950 and that for 1949-50, on 17th November, 1951. In the course of each of these assessment proceedings and before the assessment was completed, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the assessee as required by Section 28(3) of the Act, that it was proposed to take action to levy a penalty under Section 28(1)(c). Those noticed we...
In Re: Parthasarathi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ250
ORDERRajamannar, C.J.1. These two cases have been posted before us for orders as to whether the appeals were rightly filed in this Court or whether they should have been filed in the concerned District Courts. The common question in both the cases arises out of the change brought about by Madras Act (XVII of 1956) which amended the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 by substituting in Section 13 of the Civil Courts Act the words Rs. 10,000 for the words Rs. 5,000. The result of this amendment, to put it shortly, would be, whereas hitherto an appeal would have lain to this Court if the valuation was Rs. 5,000 and over, according to the Act it would have to be filed in the District Court unless it exceeds Rs. 10,000. The Act received the assent of the Governor' on 10th October, 1956, but Section 1, Sub-section (2) provided that it shall come into force only on such date as the State Government may by notification appoint. It is common ground that by notification, dated 3rd January, 1957 the a...
O.R.M. Om. Am. Chidambaram Chettiar by His Authorised Agent S. Narasim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ341
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The point that arises in this appeal for consideration is a very narrow one and is with, regard to the proper construction of Section 42 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 read in the light of the general scheme of the enactment.2. The appeal is against the order of the Abolition Tribunal, Madurai in O. P. No. 1 of 1950. The appellant was the petitioner in this original petition and he laid a claim as a secured creditor of a co-sharer the principal land-holder. The Tribunal negatived this and held that he was not a secured creditor, but that he was bound to share the compensation amount rateably along with the other unsecured creditors of this particular co-sharer.3. One Venkatesa Iyengar was the co-proprietor (owning a moiety) of the zamin village of Thiruthervalai. This estate was notified by Government and taken over, on 7th September, 1949 and Rs. 13, 649 was deposited with the Tribunal as advance compensation on 17th ...
Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook by Agent P.i. Ahmed Koya and anr. Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad1; (1957)2MLJ421
Rajagopalan, J.1. Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook and Dawood Alfulaij are traders resident outside India with their places of business on the Persian Gulf. Ahmed Koya Haji, a resident of Kozhikode, was the agent through whom Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook carried on his trading operations in India, which consisted of both sales of dates and other dried fruits, etc., and purchases of timber, etc. The purchased articles of merchandise were exported to the principal for sales outside India. That there was a continuity of business operations over a number of years was never in dispute. Similarly, Yusuf Sagar Bin Abdulla, who was also a resident of Kozhikode was the agent through whom Dawood Alfulaij carried on his trading operations of sales and purchases in India. Both Ahmed Koya and Yusuf Sagar were agents for several other non-resident traders, but we need not concern ourselves with the others in these proceedings. It should be convenient to refer to Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook and Dawood Alfulai...
Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR154(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook and Dawood Alfulaij are traders resident outside India with their places of business on the Persian Gulf. Ahmed Koya Haji, a resident of Kozhikode, was the agent through whom Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook carried on his trading operations in India, which consisted of both sales of dates and other dried fruits, etc., and purchases of timber, etc. The Purchased articles of merchandise were exported to the principal for sales outside India. That there was a continuity of business operations over a number of years was never in dispute. Similarly, Yusuf Sagar Bin Abdulla, who was also a resident of Kozhikode was the agent through whom Dawood Alfulaij carried on his trading operations of sales and purchases in India. Both Ahmed Koya and Yusuf Sagar were agents for several other non-resident traders, but we need not concern ourselves with the others in these proceedings. It should be convenient to refer to Abdul Azeez Dawood Marzook and Dawood Alfulai...
S. Vs. Veerappan Chettiar and Another V. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR411(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The petitioners, Veerappan Chettiar and Angidi Chettiar, along with two others, Ramaswami and Sundaram, constituted a firm with the vilasam Messrs. S. V. Veerappa Chettiar and Co. The firm was registered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The partnership was dissolved with effect from 13th April, 1951, and notice of the impending dissolution was given to the Income-tax Officer on 10th April, 1951.For the three assessment years mentioned above the assessee was the registered firm. The assessment for 1947-48 was completed on 22nd March, 1950, that for 1948-49 on 28th September, 1950, and that for 1949-50 on 17th November, 1951. In the course of each of these assessment proceedings and before the assessment was completed, the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the assessee as required by section 28(3) of the Act, that it was proposed to take action to levy a penalty under section 28(1)(c). Those notices were d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›