Chennai Court January 1961 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. Raman Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR700(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - The question that has been referred for the determination of this court is 'whether the reassessment under section 34 completed on June 30, 1953, for the year 1944-45 is valid ?' The facts of the case are, in brief, as below :Acting on the information that the assessee had income assessable for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46, notices under section 34 were issued in respect of both these assessment years on April 13, 1948. An assessment was in due course made by the Income-tax Officer on October 27, 1950, for the year of assessment 1945-46, the accounting year for which had ended on March 31, 1945. The ground upon which proceedings were initiated under section 34 appears to have been the information, that the assessee had been dealing in immoveable properties and had made a profit of Rs. 88,760, in consequence of such transactions. Apparently, the notice under section 34 issued in relation to the assessment year 1944-45 was not pursued further as the whole amo...
Sri Mungaliamman Temple, by Its Trustees Ella Pillai and ors. Vs. Loga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ128
Veeraswami, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiffs turns upon a question of limitation. They sued for recovery of possession of the suit lands which originally formed part of samudayam lands belonging to the Mirasi Pangudars of Acharapakkam village. Both the Courts below have held that the suit lands by dedication in about 1861, belonged to Sri Mungaliamman temple of which the plaintiffs are the trustees appointed by the then Hindu Religious Endowments Boards. This finding is no longer in dispute. The suit was framed as one by a landlord to recover possession from his tenants and was found by the trial Court to be in time. The lower appellate Court disagreed with that view and approached the question from the standpoint of whether the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit or whether the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. In its opinion, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the ancestor of the defe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›