Chennai Court August 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.
Gothamchand Galada and Gyanchand Galada, Minor Sons of Inderchand Gala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ120
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee-family carried on a money-lending business at Madras. In the relevant year of account which ended on 1st November, 1948, Inderchand Galada, the kartha of the assessee-family, was in charge of the business.Suganchand Ranka, who had been appointed cashier in December, 1947, was in charge of cash, and he continued to be in charge of cash during the temporary absence of Inderchand Galada from Madras in March, 1948. Whether anyone else was left in charge of the business during the absence of Inderchand Galada is not clear. But that Ranka was all along in charge of the cash was clear. During the absence of Inderchand Galada, Ranka misappropriated a sum of Rs. 13,330, which he appears to have lost on bets on horse races. When the shortage of cash was discovered and reported to him, Inderchand Galada returned to Madras Ranka confessed in writing to the defalcation and prayed for forgiveness (see Annexures A, A-1 and A-2). He was not prosecuted. On 7th April, 1948...
General Commercial Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. Second Additional Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR506(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the assessee, the General Commercial Corporation Private Ltd. The assessment, were made for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 on March 23,1953. Appeals were taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which were disposed of in May, 1957. These appeals failed. Further appeals to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were filed which were pending on the date of the filing of these writ petitions. We are informed that they were subsequently disposed of on November 7, 1958. Some relief is said to have been given to the assessee by the Appellate Tribunal and revised demands have been issued under section 29 of the Act on March 14, 1959. It is also stated that applications under section 66(1) of the Act were filed before the Tribunal which were dismissed.The action on the part of the Income-tax authorities which has led to the filing of these writ petitions is the issue of notices by the Income-tax Officer on July 26, 1957, to the Ban...
Surajmalls Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR491(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is :'Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that registration of the firm could not be renewed for 1952-53 ?'The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in jewellery and diamonds. The previous year relating to the assessment year 1952-53 ended with October 30, 1951. On August 1, 1952, a notice was served on the assessee under section 22(2) and section 38 of the Act to submit a return of income. Notwithstanding the grant of further time, no return was submitted. A further notice under section 22(4) directed the assessee to produce his books of account on August 17, 1953. On this date, a return of income was filed on which the income was provisionally shown as Rs. 75,000. With regard to the submission of accounts, the assessee claimed that the accounts were still incomplete and that it would take another two months for the books to be completed and the return to be filed. ...
Aruna Metal Industries Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad223; (1960)IILLJ681Mad; (1960)IILLJ681Mad
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in I.D. No. 1 of 1958, on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and quashing the award dated 30th June 195S passed therein, in so far as it directed the reinstatement of Ramachandran in the petitioner's services. 2. The petitioner, Aruna Metal Industries, is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of barss and copper utensils. On 1st November 1955, the petitioner entertained one Ramachandran to work in the factory as a cooly. Sometime thereafter, the Inspector of Factories, evidently in the course of the inspection of petitioner's factory saw the worker and felt a doubt as to whether he was an adult, adolescent or a child. Section 67 of the Factories Act prohibits the employment of young children in the factories. Section 68, however, permits a child who has completed 14 years of age or an adolescent to work therein...
S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar, Karaikudi Vs. the Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ558
Rajagopalan, J.1. On 24th September, 1951, the assessee purchased a motor car in Singapore, and on 1st October, 1951, he purchased a radio which was fitted into the car. The total cost computed in terms of Indian curency came to Rs 11,691. Subsequently, in November, 1951, the assessee brought the car with the radio to India. In the assessment year 1952-53 the Department held that the assessee had brought this sum of Rs. 11,691 as a remittance into the taxable territory. The appeal to the Assistant Commissioner failed. The further appeal to the Tribunal also failed, the Tribunal rejecting the assessee's claim with the observation;the cost of car and radio purchased out of foreign profits and brought into India clearly represents money or money's worth brought over.2. The question referred to this Court under Section 66 (i) of the Income-tax Act was,whether the cost of the car and radio purchased out of foreign profits and brought into the taxable territory can constitute remittance of f...
S. N. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR277(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - On September 24, 1951, the assessee purchased a motor car in Singapore, and on October 1,1951, he purchased a radio which was fitted into the car. The total cost computed in terms of Indian currency came to Rs. 11,691. Subsequently, in November, 1951, the assessee brought the car with the radio to India. In the assessment year 1952-53 the Department held that the assessee had brought this sum of Rs. 11, 691 as a remittance into the taxable territory. The appeal to the Assistant Commissioner failed. The further appeal to the Tribunal also failed, the Tribunal rejecting the assessees claim with the observation :'the cost of car and radio purchased out of foreign profits and brought into India clearly represents money or moneys worth brought over.'The question referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act was, 'whether the cost of the car and radio purchased out of foreign profits and brought into the taxable territories can constitute remittance of fo...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation with Its Regional Office at Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad176; [1961(2)FLR391]; (1961)ILLJ593Mad; (1961)1MLJ143
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore in Proceedings No. 1 of 1955 under the Employees' State Insurance Act, XXXIV of 1948.2. The respondents in this appeal, who are employees of the Lotus Mills Ltd., Podanur, made an application under Section 75 and Regulation 40 of the Employees' State Insurance Act for a declaration that the applicants-respondents were not employees liable to pay any contribution under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act. They also prayed for an order directing the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to refund the contributions till now erroneously collected from the applicants till the date of the application. The first of the opposite parties was the Lotus Mills Ltd., and the second was the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The Lotus Mills seem to have remained ex parte, while the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a written statement raising various contentions as to the untenability...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›