Chennai Court November 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.
Sundaram and Co. (Private), Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ36
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The question referred to us for decision arises in connection with proceedings under Section 23A of the Income-tax Act in relation to the assessment of the assessee, Sundaram and Company (Private), Ltd., for the year 1951-52. It runs:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 23A are applicable to the appellant-company having regard to the Second Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 23A.The assessee is a private limited company consisting of three shareholders. Its paid up capital is Rs. 6,000. Even prior to the year of account in question, the company had accumulated reserves which after deducting dividends already declared amounted to Rs. 1,17,919 It is obvious that those reserves representing accumulation of past profits had exceeded its paid up capital.2. For the assessment year 1951-52 the company was assessed to a total income of Rs. 1,35,954. After deducting income-tax and super-tax payable thereon a sum of Rs. 7...
K. Appa Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ280
Srinivasan, J.1. During the calendar year 1949 relevant to the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee borrowed a sum of Rs. One lakh from a bank and purchased shares in a public limited company. He paid a sum of Rs. 6,543 towards interest on the loan during the year of account. During that year he derived no dividend from the shares in that company or any other shares owned by him. He had however, other income which was assessable and was in fact assessed under the head ' Other Sources'; and he claimed that the interest payment should be deducted from the income from other sources before the assessable income under that head could be computed. The Income-tax Officer refused this relief on the ground:It is gathered at the time of hearing that the assessee borrowed more than a lakh of rupees from this bank for investing in shares in Subhodaya Publications, a limited concern. ,No income is derived from this company so far.This interest payment cannot therefore be allowed under 'Business' a...
M.C.T.M. Corporation (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ271
Srinivasan, J.1. The three questions that have been referred to us are these:1. Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that the loss of $1,64,958 and $1,96,132 by re-valuation of the fixed and floating assets of the Kualalumpur and Johore businesses of the assessee arose as and when the various transactions took place from time to time during the enemy occupation period till 1945, and not on the 1st October, 1949 the date on which the Debtor and Creditor (Occupation period) Ordinance came into force?2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether any part of the loss incurred by the assessee till the end of the enemy occupation in 1945, is available under Section 24(2) as a set-off against the assessments of 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, notwithstanding that they had not been determined in any proceedings for the relevant year?3. If the answer to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid contributions of $2,21,301 and $49,433...
Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1009(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The questions referred to us are :'1. Whether Rs. 2,028, Rs. 698, and Rs. 1,496 incurred in connection with suits, O.S. No. 80 of 1946 and A.S. No. 306 of 1949, or any part thereof are deductible in the assessments of 1949-50, 1952-53 and 1953-54 respectively under section 10(2)(xv) ?2. Whether Rs. 1,029, Rs. 1,836, Rs. 2,792 and Rs. 5,987 incurred in the other five suits aforesaid on any part thereof are deductible in the assessment of 1945-50, 1950-51, 1952-53 and 1953-54 respectively under section 10(2)(xv) ?'The facts giving rise to these two question are briefly these. The assessee is a private limited company which was carrying on transport business. One of the objects of the company was also to invest by way of shares and securities in any other company which was engaged in transport business. Besides certain vehicles for the purpose of its transport operations, the company had also 36 fully paid-up shares in another company known as the Tirunelveli Motor Bus Co....
Sundaram and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR161(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J., - The question referred to us for decision arises in connection with proceedings under section 23A of the Income-tax Act in relation to the assessment of the assessee, Sundaram and, Co. (Pte.) Ltd., for the year 1951-52. It runs :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provisions of section 23A are applicable to the appellant company having regard to the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 23A ?'The assessee is a private limited company consisting of three shareholders. Its paid-up capital is Rs. 6,000. Even prior to the year of account in question, the company had accumulated reserves which after deducting dividends already declared amounted to Rs. 1,17,919. It is obvious that those reserves representing accumulation of past profits had exceeded its paid-up capital.For the assessment year 1951-52, the company was assessed to a total income of Rs. 1,35,954. After deducting income-tax and super-tax payable thereon a sum of Rs. 76,89...
K. Appa Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR511(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - During the calendar year 1949, relevant to the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee borrowed a sum of rupees one lakh from a bank and purchased shares in a public limited company. He paid a sum of Rs. 6,543 towards interest on the loan during the year of account. During that year he derived no dividend from the shares in that company or any other shares owned by him. He had, however, other income which was assessable and was in fact assessed under the head 'other sources'; and he claimed that the interest payment should be deducted from the income from other sources before the assessable income under that head could be computed. The Income-tax Officer refused this relief on the ground :'It is gathered at the time of hearing that the assessee borrowed more than a lakh of rupees from this bank for investing in shares in Subhodaya Publications, a limited concern. No income is derived from this company so far. This interest payment cannot, therefore, be allowed under busin...
Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR328(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is the Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. It owns a building of which a part is occupied by the company for its own business, the rest being let out for rent. In respect of the assessment for the year 1950-51, the Income-tax Officer computed the income from the house property separately and since the building was a new construction, he considered that the assessee was eligible for the two years exemption provided under section 4(3) (xii) of the Act in respect of the rental income. The Commissioner of Income-tax, taking the view that the Income-tax Officer had acted erroneously (not only in respect of the rental income from the building but in respect of other allowances such as depreciation), issued a notice under section 33B of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer granting exemptions and allowances and directed that the computation of the income of the assessee company should be made on th...
C.J. Sheth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1052(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - The following question has been referred to us for our opinion under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 23,049 is an allowable deduction under section 10(2) of the Act ?'.The assessee who was carrying on business originally as a proprietary concern took a working partner, Shantilal Navalchand, on and from the 1st April, 1949, the share of the latter being 8/17. The partnership continued for about six years and was dissolved on 31st March, 1955, when Shantilal Navalchand retired from the firm. Thereafter the assessee continued the business with the same stock-in-trade himself taking over the entire assets and liabilities of the firm.While submitting his return for the assessment year 1956057 (the relative year of account ending with March 31, 1956) the assessee deducted a sum of Rs. 23,049 as bad and doubtful debts. Those debts were originally due to the firm of which Shantilal Navalcha...
M. C. T. M. Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR478(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that have been referred to us are these :'1. Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that the loss of $ 1,64,958 and $ 1,96,132 by revaluation of the fixed and floating assets of the Kuala Lumpur and Johore business of the assessee arose as and when the various transactions took place from time to time during the enemy occupation period till 1945 and not on the 1st October, 1949, the date on which the Debtor and Creditor (Occupation Period) Ordinance came into force ?2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative whether any part of the loss incurred by the assessee till the end of the enemy occupation in 1945 is available under section 24(2) as a set-off against the assessments of 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53, notwithstanding that they had not been determined in any proceedings for the relevant year ?3. If the answer to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid contributions of $ 2,21,301 and $ 49,433 by the...
A.G.V. Subramania Iyer and ors. Vs. Pudumadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ545; (1962)2MLJ150
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The petitioners are respondents in M.C.T.P. No. 28 of 1959 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, and they are referred to in these proceedings as the B party. The petition in the lower Court was one under Section 145, Cri.P C; it arose out of a dispute between the A and B parties in respect of some lands. There are eight items of lands as disclosed in the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cri.P.C. The extent of the lands in respect of which the dispute between the parties existed is also given in that order. The learned Executive First Class Magistrate was of the opinion that he could not himself decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the properties in dispute and he therefore referred the question to the District Munsif of Tenkasi, under Section 146(1) Cri.P.C. to decide the question as to which of the parties was in possession of the three disputed lands, since there was no dispute as regards the other five items o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »