Chennai Court October 1962 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.
L. G. Balakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR102(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - Section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act reads :'In computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment there shall be included -(a) so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly -(iv) from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the minor child, not being a married daughter, by such individual otherwise than for adequate consideration.'In this reference we are concerned with the applicability of the above provision to the fact and circumstances of the case. The assessee is one L. G. Balakrishnan, who had declared his status as a Hindu undivided family with one minor son. The accounting year is the year ended 31st March, 1958, and the assessment year is 1958-59. In computing the assessable income the Additional Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, included a sum of Rs. 933 as the assessees income but it was objected to by him. The Income-tax Officer claimed to include this amount, as in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rathinasabapathy Mudaliar (Dece ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR204(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This reference has been brought before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax on his application under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The family was partitioned on April 4, 1947. Following this partition, which was accepted by an order under section 25A, the assessee and his four major sons constituted themselves into a partnership, and to the benefits of this partnership a minor son was admitted. This partnership was also registered under section 26A of the Act. The partnership, it may be stated, was in respect of the managing agency of Pankaja Mills Limited, Coimbatore.For the assessment years 1948-49 to 1951-52, individual assessment were made in respect of the share income of the minor on returns filed by his mother, Mrs. Komalavallithayar Ammal, as his guardian. The assessee, Rathinasabhapathy Mudaliar, the erstwhile karta of the family, was also assessed individually in respect of his inc...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Thiagarajan Shiyali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad58; [1963]49ITR581(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. This reference raises a question of Hindu law. One Srinivasa Mudaliar and his son Thiagarajan originally constituted a Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. The family owned considerable moveable and immoveable properties. There was a partition between the father and the son on the 1st April 1951. Thereafter each of them was separately assessed to income-tax as 'individuals' in respect of their income from the divided assets, received by them on partition. Srinivasa Mudaliar died on the 14th December 1953. He was survived by his widow, the mother of Thiagarajan, and his son Thiagarajan. In respect of the assets of Srinivasa Mudaliar, which he had obtained at the partiton referred to Thiagarajan and his mother claimed joint ownership. They applied for Succession Certificate to realise amounts invested by way of fixed deposits and for collection of dividends due from shares of limited companies.For the years ended 31st March 1955 and 31st ...
E.S. Hajee Abdul Kareem and Son Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad239; (1963)IMLJ326
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee is a firm which consisted of two partners, Abdul Kareem and his son Abdul Gaffer Sahib. On the 31st March 1953, Abdul Kareem made a declaration before the Masjeed Committee of Mahammadpara, where, under he made certain: gifts to his wife and children. In the books of the assessee, transfer entries were made on the same date, debiting the account of Abdul Kareem with these amounts and crediting the accounts of the above parties, the donees under the gifts. The cash balance on that date was not sufficient to enable Abdul Kareem to withdraw any amounts and make the gifts by way of cash. Following this, the constitution of the assessee firm underwent several changes. Besides Abdul Kareem and his eldest son, six other employees of the firm were taken on as partners.In the assessment year following these gifts, the accounts of the various parties to whom the gifts had been made figured as depositors in the accounts of the firm and interest was credited to their ...
E. S. Hajee Abdul Kareem and Son Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR396(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a firm which consisted of two partners, Abdul Kareem and his son, Abdul Gaffer Sahib. On the 31st March, 1953, Abdul Kareem made a Declaration before the Masjeed Committee of Mahammadpara, whereunder, he made certain gifts to his wife and children. In the books of the assessee, transfer entries were made on the same date, debiting the account of Abdul Kareem with these amounts and crediting the accounts of the above parties, the donees under the gifts. The cash balance on that date was not sufficient to enable Abdul Kareem to withdraw any amounts and make the gifts by way of cash. Following this, the constitution of the assessee firm underwent several changes. Besides Abdul Kareem and his eldest son, six other employees of the firm were taken in as partners. In the assessment year following these gifts, the accounts of the various parties to whom the gifts had been made figured as depositors in the accounts of the firm and interest was credited to their ...
E. S. Haji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR250(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a firm of four partners constituted under an instrument of partnership of the year 1954. Its application for registration for the prior years were granted. But in respect of its application for renewal of the registration for the assessment year 1958-59, the Income-tax Officer found that the correct profits of the year had not been ascertained and that no profits had been divided and credited to the partners account. The assessee had only estimated its gross profits at five per cent. on the turnover and after debiting all the charges returned a net income of Rs. 4,264. Along with the form of application submitted by the assessee, the assessee enclosed a copy of the profit and loss statement, the relevant part of which is extracted below :(Statement of profit and loss account for Samvat 2013-2nd November, 1956, to 22nd October, 1957)Rs.Rs.Total turnover on sales during the year net Rs. 15,38,807.42 - by profits worked out at 5 per cent. on the turnover 76...
Muthuswami Odayar Vs. Savarimuthu Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad249; (1963)IMLJ171
Ramachandra Iyer, C. J. 1. These appeals have raised a question of some difficulty on the interpretation of Sub-section (9) (a) (i) of Section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the importance of it has necessitated this reference to a Full Bench. The point for decision can be formulated thus: 'Where in the case of a usufructuary mortgage (to which the scaling down provisions of Section 9-A of the Act would apply) created after the enactment came into torce, there has been a lease back by the mortgagee of the mortgaged properties to the mortgagor, the payments of rent made by the latter to the former can be regarded as payments made for interest and be re-appropriated towards the principal after providing for interest at the rate prescribed by Section 13.' The two appeals concern different parties and have nothing in common except the determination of the question aforesaid. We shall first refer briefly to the facts that have led ...
G.H. Yusuf Sait Vs. S. Ramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad367; (1963)1MLJ333
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding involves a question of some interest and importance with regard to the degree to which a Court exercising powers in insolvency could review or set aside its own order, either under powers vested in the Court by virtue of Section 5 of (he Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920), read with Section 114, C. P. Code and Order 47, Rule I, C. P. Code, or by virtue of its inherent powers under Section 151, C. P. Code. As I shall show presently, there is the authority of the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Chandramouleswaran v. Krishnaswami Naidu, : AIR1953Mad993 in an instance that was very similar upon the facts, for the affirmative reply to the question with regard to the power of the Court. But the matter is not free from difficulty, particularly in view of certain authorities that have been placed before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence I shall first particularise the essential facts which have led up to the revi...
E. M. Muthappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR642(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The following two questions have been referred to us under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act :'1. Whether the proceedings under section 34 for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 are valid ?2. Whether the assessment under section 34 and alteration of the share income of the assessee in his personal assessment for the years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 (without a reassessment of the firm in the first instance) is valid ?'The assessee and one Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar were partners of an unregistered firm called Viswanathan Ginning Factory. Each of them had a half share in the said business. This partnership commenced even during the lifetime of the assessees father, Viswanathan Chettiar. Both the partners were Nattukottai Chettiars and they were good friends. Viswanathan Chettiar purchased from Volkarts United Press Co. Ltd. a ginning factory at Nallatinpudur. The business, started in the name of Viswanathan Ginning Factory, was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Mrs. Jayalakshmi Duraiswamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR525(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is the widow of one Duraiswamy, who died on August 20, 1949. He had no male issues but had three daughters, who were minors at the time of his death. His last will and testament is dated May 4, 1949. The assessee has been appointed as executrix under the will to carry out the directions contained therein. The last assessment of Duraiswamy as an individual was for the assessment year 1949-50. Thereafter, up to the assessment year 1953-54, the assessments were made on his widow as executrix of his estate. From the assessment year 1954-55 onwards she has been assessed in her own name in the status of an individual. In accordance with the directions contained in the will, to which we shall refer later in detail, the widow (the assessee) claimed to have spends a sum of Rs. 30,875 towards the maintenance of her daughters in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1954-55 and sought to have this amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›