Chennai Court February 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.
K. S. A. A. Manickam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR716(Mad)
The judgment of the Court was delievered bySRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, resident of the former Pudukottai State. It was carrying on money-lending business in Malacca from 1930 onwards. It has purchased properties in Malacca and one of such purchases was an estate called Sungai Bahru Ulu Estate on the 25th March, 1937, for 23,852 dollars. Between 1931 and 1941 it had purchased twelve properties, two of which were sold in 1940 and one in 1941. Thereafter, there were no purchases or sales. Sungai Bahru Ulu Estate, which had been bought for cash, was sold in 1951, and it resulted in a profit of 22,802 dollars. This profit was brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1952-53. The contention that it was a capital accretion was repelled, the Income-tax Officer observing :'It is not disputed that the assessee has been doing money-lending business also at this place. The mere fact that this property was purch...
Royal Printing Works Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ60Mad
ORDERRamachandra Ayyar, C.J.1. This appeal, which is directed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., concerns the propriety of an award directing reinstatement of two workers, Manickam and Kuppuawami, by the management of the Royal Printing Works, the appellant before us. Mr. N. Panchapakesa Ayyar learned Counsel for the appellant, very fairly conceded that the order of dismissal passed by the management on Manickam in October 1957 could not be supported and that the order of the industrial tribunal directing reinstatement cannot be assailed.2. What then remains for consideration is the propriety of the order of the industrial tribunal directing the reinstatement of Kuppuswami, the head of the Job composing department. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., was of the view that the three charges laid by the management against the concerned worker were not specific and that therefore the punishment meted out on those charges could not be sustained. The charges laid against Kuppuswami were:(1) W...
Arthur Import Export Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC1022(Mad)
Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition filed by Messrs Arthur Import Export Co., questions the assessment of the petitioners to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the year 1953-54. The petitioners have their head office at Bombay and a branch at Coimbatore. The assessment proceeded on the footing that they imported staple fibre yarn from various countries into India and thereafter sold the yarn to several mills in Coimbatore. The claim was resisted by the petitioners firstly on the ground that they were not themselves the importers, that they merely acted as agents of the several mills, who alone had the requisite permit under the Import and Export Control Act of 1947 to import the yarn from abroad, and that consequently there was no sale by them at all to the several mills Alternatively it was contended before the authorities below, the Commercial Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, that even if it should be held that they were not mere agents...
Bichal Naidu Vs. S.K. Muthuramalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ352
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This Revision proceeding involves a question of some interest, namely, the extent to which Section 4(1) of Madras Act I of 1955 would be operative to split up a debt owed by an agriculturist into the different parts or instalments contemplated by the section, each forming a distinct cause of action both with regard to the right to sue upon the debt, and with regard to limitation; The revision petitioner before us is the second defendant in a suit upon a negotiable instrument, under the following circumstances.2. The case of plaintiff (respondent) was that the first defendant and his undivided son, the second defendant (revision petitioner), conducted a Mandi business, in respect of which there were dealings with the plaintiff from prior to 1st October, 1953. On 24th March, 1954, the accounts were settled as between the parties, and a balance of Rs. 681 -4-11 was due which the revision petitioner acknowledged, and in respect of which he executed a promissory note i...
Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR314(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - Sankaralinga Nadar and his two sons, Muthumaniratnam and Nagarajan, together constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. The family was carrying on business by trading in arecanuts imported from Ceylon. The business was done under the three vilasams, (1) V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar, (2) V.A.M.S. Muthumaniratna Nadar, and (3) V.A.M.S. Nagarajan. The family became divided on April 13, 1940, and each of the three coparceners got the business in their respective names by allotment under the partition. In respect of the year of assessment 1950-51 relating to the previous year 'ending with April 12, 1950' the business income of the family was assessed in the following sums :Rs.(i)V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar . 3,204 (ii)V.A.M.S. Muthumaniratna Nadar . 4,506 (iii)V.A.M.S. Nagarajan . 14,782 Total 22,492 The order of assessment of the Income-tax Officer on the Hindu undivided family was passed on September 4, 1950.In the course of the assessment for the year 1951-52 of the busi...
V. S. Sv. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR206(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us in these two references is substantially the same though the references relate to different assessees. We shall deal with the facts in T. C. No. 115 of 1959.The assessee had some rubber estates in Malaya. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, certain sums were received by the assessee from a Board constituted under the Rubber Industry (Replanting) Fund Ordinance, 1952, of the Federation of Malaya. The Income-tax Officer brought this amount to assessment as a revenue receipt liable to be taxed. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner objecting to the assessment of this amount on the ground that the amount received from the Government was with the object of helping the running of the rubber estate and its payment was also conditioned by the requirement that a certain area of rubber estate should be replanted with high-yielding rubber trees. It was accordingly claimed that this was a ...
P. Arunachala Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR36(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference application under the Indian Income-tax Act and the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the assessee under section 18A(9)(a) read with section 28(1)(c) of the Act was valid in law ?'The facts giving rise to this application are as follows : The assessee is a partner in several firms carrying on business. These firms were registered under the Indian Income-tax Act. They were (1) K. N. P. Arunachala Mudaliar and Co., Tiruchi, (2) P. Ramaswami, Woraiyur, (3) Arunachala Knitting Factory, Karur, (4) P. Perianna Mudaliar Weaving Factory, Srirangam.The assessee was served with a demand notice from the department for payment of advance tax of Rs. 7,947-8-0 under section 18(A)(1) for the assessment year 1952-53. The amount demanded was calculated on the basis of the assessment for the previous completed year 1951-52. The date of the notice was 20th August, ...
C.i.T. Vs. Chennai Kaithari Corporation (Private) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: [1971]79ITR462(Mad); (1963)IMLJ93
Srinivasan, J. 1. The question referred to us is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount, viz., interim dividend of Rs. 42,500, credited in the accounts of the shareholders of the company, was a distribution of dividend as contemplated by the Finance Act of 1956 '2. The assessee is a private limited company with a paid-up capital of Rs. 3,40,000. During the account year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the general body, at its meeting held on 2nd July, 1955, declared a dividend ofRs. 59,500. On 28th December, 1955, the board of directors resolved to pay an interim dividend of Rs. 42,500. This latter amount was credited to the accounts of the individual shareholders of the company entitled to that interim dividend. The actual payment of the dividend was however made to the members after the close of the accounting year which was on 31st December, 1955. The Income-tax Officer applied the provisions of the Finance Act of 1956, as the total dividend ...
K. A.M. P. Meerasahib Tharaganar and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR950(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The firm of Messrs. K. A.M. P. Meera Sahib Tharaganar and Bros., carrying on business at Kandy in Ceylon consists of two partners, K. A. Meera Sahib and K. A. Peer Mohammed. The firm is an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act. Up to the assessment year 1951-52 the firm was granted the benefit of registration under section 26A of the Act. In respected by the Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Tuticorin, and to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, but failed. On an application preferred by the assessee to this court, under section 66(2) of the Act, the Tribunal was directed to state the case raising the following question of law :'Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the refusal of the Income-tax Act was valid in law ?'It is this question which we have now to answer.There is no dispute about the facts and they may be briefly stated. The Income-tax Officer called ...
A. Narayanan and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad179; [1963]47ITR740(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. Chockalingam Chettiar, a Hindu of the Nattukottat Chettiar community and his son, Annamalai, effected a partition of their family properties on the 28th March 1939. Chockalingam executed a Will on 2nd February 1945 By which he made bequests of the properties got by him under the partition. On the date of the will, he had two grand-sons by Annamalai, Narayanan and Viswanathan. Narayanan was born on 29th May 1939, and Viswanathan was born on 17th September 1941. Annamalai's wife was one Meenakshi Achi. Chockalingam died on 7th February 1943. After the death of Chockalingam, two sons were born to Annamalai. They are Chockalingam born on 11th August 1946 and Ramaswami born on 23rd March 1948. 2. The income from the estate of Chockalingam came in for assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act for the year 1951-52. The assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer on the footing that Narayanan and Viswanatham the two grand-sons of Chockalinga who alone were in existence on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »