Chennai Court September 1958 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.
M. Kr. Deivanayagam Pillai Vs. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR549(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - For the assessment year 1947-48 the petitioner was assessed to income-tax in India. The total of the remittances by the petitioner from the profits of the business he carried on in Burma in the relevant year of account was Rs. 1,15,382. His net assessable income in India was computed as Rs. 1,11,490. The income-tax payable on that income was determined at Rs. 64,715-13-0. The assessment was confirmed successively by the Assistant Commissioner and by the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal was on the 14th July, 1952. The assessment proceedings in Burma with reference to the petitioners income there during the same period was completed on 11th February, 1952, and the petitioner was assessed to pay a tax in Burma of Rs. 48,847-8-0. The petitioner paid that tax in instalments in due course. On 31st July, 1953, the petitioner applied to the Burma authorities for relief from the doubt taxation he had suffered and obtained a refund of Rs. 19,586-14-0 in March, 1954. On 15t...
Thirumagaral Mudaliar Vs. Muruga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mad55
(1) This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in A. S. No. 131 of 1955, reversing the well-considered decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Ranipet in O. S. No. 214 of 1953. (2) The established facts are: Two brothers by name Sundaresiah and Ramachandriah had mortgaged their properties in favour of the plaintiff Tirumagaral Mudaliar under Ex. A-13 dated 9-5-1949 for Rs. 1000/-. The mortgagee was pressing the mortgagors for repayment. Therefore they negotiated with the defendant Muruga Pillai to sell the suit properties to him and executed the sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 2-1-1953. It need not be pointed out that the primary and immediate object of this sale was the discharge of the indebtedness due to the plaintiff.(3) The evidence in this case clearly shows that the defendant was unable to discharge the indebtedness due to the plaintiff and of which he had taken a Havala. Therefore the plaintiff had filed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›