Chennai Court November 1960 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.
Narayana Ayyangar, Kasturi Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad258; (1961)1MLJ198
Jagadisan, J.1. Venkatarama Iyengar, Kasturi Iyengar and Ranga Iyengar, three residents of the village of Kariamanikam, Lalgudi taluk, Tiruchirapalli Dt., of pious nature with enterprising spirit, conceived the idea of establishing a feeding charity years ago. The famous shrine of Sri Prasanna Venkatachala-pathiswami at Gunaseelam village was only one and half miles away from their village. The sanctity of the shrine is so high and the devotion of its worshippers from far and near is so great that largo concourse of pilgrims resort to it in all seasons ofa the year, particularly during the Brahmotsavam festival in the month of Purattasi.These pious individuals collected subscriptions and donations from the people in the locality, added their own contributions to the collected fund and began to feed brahmins who came to Gunaseelam during the annual festival. Besides this feeding at Gunaseelam they also fed brahmins of a Vanabho-janam in Kariamanikam village ifself in the month of Karthi...
N. K. Raju Vs. State of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1960
Reported in: [1969]71ITR748(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The petitioner N. K. Raju, had five sons, of whom only one Lingaraj was an adult in 1955. Deveammal is the wife of N. K. Raju. The family owned tea and coffee plantations. The agricultural income from plantations was made liable to tax under Madras Act V of 1955 in the assessment year 1955-56, which commenced on April 1, 1955. In the course of these assessment proceedings Raju claimed that the tea and coffee plantations had been divided between himself and his sons, a portion also being set aside for his wife, and that each of them should be assessed separately on the income that had been derived from the lands allotted to his or her share. On August 8, 1956, the Agricultural Income tax Officer passed an order under section 29(1) of the Act, an order which apparently the assessee sought. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer recorded that he was statisfied that the joint family properties had been partitioned among the assessee in definite shares, that is, between Raju a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›