Chennai Court December 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.
Rajeswari Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR29(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether the sum of Rs. 44,617 out of the profit derived by the company from out of its spinning operations which commenced on March 24, 1951, is exempt from payment of tax for the assessment year 1956-57, under Section 15C of the Income-tax Act 2. The assessee is a public limited company. It was incorporated in 1946, one of the objects of the company being to carry on business in 'fibrous articles, viz., cotton, jute, etc., purchase, sale or production of fibrous articles such as yarn, cloth, silk, wool, etc., the purchase of the machinery required for the same....' Buildings were constructed and necessary machinery installed for weaving silk cloth and the manufacture was commenced on January 12, 1949. As a result of losses, the company stopped the silk weaving business on December 31, 1949.3. Thereafter, the company put up separate buildings and installed machinery for the manufacture of cotton yarn. The buildings were completed in March...
V. Rajagopal Vs. Salem Provident Society (In Liquidation) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad297; [1963]33CompCas435(Mad); (1953)1MLJ402
Ganapatia Pillai, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Salem, in I. A. No. 165 of 1956 in O. P. No. 26 of 1948, by which he rejected the claim of the appellant for payment of a sum of Rs. 43,500/- from out of the funds of a company in liquidation.2. The appellant was employed as Secretary, ex-officio Director of the Salem Provident Society Ltd., ever since its foundation. It was doing insurance business. In March, 1948, the Superintendent of Insurance applied for the compulsory winding up of the company and obtained an order for winding up. During the pendency of the application, an Official Liquidator was appointed to take charge of the assets of the company in October, 1948. On the Official Liquidator taking charge of the business of the company, the petitioner, as the Secretary, had to vacate office. He therefore came forward with a claim that the termination of his service was wrongful, and that gave rise to a cause of action for damages, whic...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad356; [1963]33CompCas407(Mad); [1963]48ITR1005(Mad); (1963)1MLJ319
Jagadisan, J.1. Messrs. Pierce Leslie and Co., Ltd., which is a non-resident company was assessed to tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1957-58. We shall refer to this company as the assesses in this judgment. It filed a return under the Act stating that its net wealth was Rs. 59,51,073. In computing this net wealth the assessee claimed as deduction a sum of Rs. 33,24,609, as a debt due and owing which ought to be taken into account in fixing the taxable value under the Act. The break up of this figure Rs. 33,24,609 was as follows :1. the amount of income-tax demanded as per order under Section 18-A of the Indian Income-tax Act and outstanding on the valuation date 30th June 1956 , Rs. 10,22,463 2. Amount of income-tax due and payable on the valuation date as per notice of demand under Section 29, Indian Income-tax Act Rs.2,56,762 3. Estimated reserve for liability to pay income-tax notassessed on the valuation date, but for which provisionwas made by the asse...
Chellappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. T.P. Kalyanasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad423; (1963)2MLJ237
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. C. M. A. No. 137 of 1960 is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore allowing the application made by the judgment-debtor in a mortgage decree under Order 34 rule 5 to receive the amount deposited into court. C. M. A. No. 138 of 1960 is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge consequent upon the order made by him in the application made under Order 34 Rule 5 setting aside the sale in question and the C. R. P. is directed against the first order on the footing that if no appeal was competent the order was liable to be revised. The short facts necessary to understand the case are these. The first respondent in both the C. M. As. obtained a mortgage decree on the foot of a mortgage in O. S. No. 58 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tanjore. The preliminary decree was passed on 18-11-1955. The amount directed to be deposited by the preliminary decree not having been deposited within the time allowed, the final decree follow-. ed ...
Rukmani Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad510; [1962]46ITR808(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee, Rukmani Company Private Ltd. purchased in March 1947, a decree from one Sundaram Chettiar. Sundaram Chettiar held the decree against the zamindar of Gothumalai and it was for the face value of Rs. 1,44,035. The assessee made the purchase for the sum of Rs. 41,200 only. Thereafter various steps were taken by the assessee in the court to recover the decreed amount. A short while after the purchase, the enactment abolishing zamindaries came into force, as a result of which the assessee as one of the creditors of the zamindar was enabled to obtain payment from the compensation amount payable to the Zamindat by the State. During the account year relevant to the assessment year .1956-57, the assessee realised a sum of Rs. 1,38,240 and after deducting his total upto that date of Rs. 69,360 made a profit of ifs. 68,880. In the return for that assessment, year, however, the assessee while showing the profit, claimed exemption as income of a casual and non-recurrin...
S. Hastimal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR273(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question referred under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had material to hold that the sum of Rs. 25,000 was income from undisclosed sources in the year of assessment 1948-49 and assessable under the Act ?'The assessee was a partner of the firm of Messrs. Hastimal Jayantilal and Co., Coonoor. The firm was dissolved in 1952 and the assessee thereafter carried on business in his individual capacity. In the course of assessment proceedings of the firm it was noticed that the assessee had invested therein a capital of Rs. 63,000 during the period July, 1947, to November 1947. The assessee represented that he contributed the capital by borrowing from third parties. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied that to the extent of a major portion of the amount the assessees version was true. He, however, did not accept the case of the assessee in respect of a borrowal of Rs. 25,000 from one Vijayaram Ganeshdas of Bikaner. He i...
A. Kannan Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR601(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred for the decision of this court is :'Whether any or all the income from the properties dealt with by the family under the aforesaid deeds, viz., Nos. I, II and III, dated July 31, 1956, is assessable as income of the joint family after the date of the said deeds ?'The assessee is Kannan Chetty. He was assessed as an individual in respect of the properties covered by the assessment till 1950-51. In the assessment year 1951-52, he made a return describing his status as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. This family consisted of himself, his son, Namberumal Chetty and the sons of Namberumal Chetty. The family owned house properties in the city besides a business in hardware and money-lending. On December 31, 1950, the business assets referred to were divided between Kannan Chetty and his son, Namberumal. This was followed by the execution of a deed of partnership as between them, these divided assets of the business being brought in as the assets o...
Fomra Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR684(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that have been referred to us are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted rightly in rejecting the assessees claim for development rebate on the new cars and lorries ?(2) Whether the Tribunals decision allowing depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent. is correct in law ?'The assessee firm, besides dealing in electrical goods, acts as agents for distribution of Burmah-Shell products. It also maintains a fleet of cars and lorries which it hires out, solely we are informed, for the use of officials of the Burmah-Shell Co. The hire receipts from these vehicles have been 1954-55 onwards. During the calendar years 1956 and 1957, relevant to the assessment year 1957-58 and 1958-59, respectively, the assessee purchased and used for this part of its business new cars and lorries. Development rebate under section 10(2) (vi) of the Act was claimed. In addition thereto, depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent. under the Income-tax ...
K. Subramania Pillai Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Thuckalay.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR764(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This reference arises under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The assessee, Subramania Pillai, executed a settlement deed covering his agricultural properties. In the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer excluded the income from the properties covered by the settlement deed in making an assessment upon the income of the assessee. The Commissioner, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, revised the assessment, holding that the settlement fell within the mischief of section 9(1) of the Act. this revision was made after issuing a notice to the assessee and after hearing the assessee. The result was that the settlement was held to be a revocable settlement, failing within the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act, so that the assessee became liable to be assessed on the income of the properties covered by the settlement as well. On the application of the assessee under section 62 of the Act, the Commissioner ...
O. Rm. M. Sp. Sv. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR801(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The questions referred under section 66 of the Income-tax Act are as follow :'(1) Whether the assessee is entitled to both the parts of relief contemplated under section 25(3) of the Act in respect of foreign businesses at Penang, Ipoh and Kambar?(2) Whether the applicant is also entitled to relief under section 25(3) of the Act with regard to rental income from house properties owned by the foreign firm which was discontinued in the year of account?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of $ 32,097 being recovered under the Malayan Debtor and Creditor Ordinance are not assessable in the year of assessment 1952-53?'The assessee is a firm called O.RM.M.SP.SV. Firm. Prior to the constitution of this firm, the partners were members of Hindu undivided family. The vilasam of the family was also O.RM.M.SP.SV. The family which consisted of one Meyyappa Chettiar and his two brothers carried on money-lending business in the India and in the form...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »