Chennai Court March 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.
Rangammal and Others Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR598(Mad)
GANAPATIA PILLAI J. - Plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 in O. S. No. 26 of 1956, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Erode, are the appellants before us. They along with four others brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the properties described as items Nos. 1 to 13 and 14 to 21 in the plaint schedule should not be either sold or could be sold if at all only subject to a charge in favour of the 6th plaintiff for realisation of income-tax arrears due from their elder brother, Ramaswami, and for a permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and the Collector of Coimbatore from bringing these properties to sale for realisation of the income-tax arrears due.The facts are the following. One Palaniappa Mudaliar was doing hardware business in Erode from 1920. He prospered in the business and purchased many properties including all the properties now in suit. He died in 1937, leaving his widow, the 3rd plaintiff, and eight children. The first plaintiff...
V. K. Nataraja Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR487(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the Hindu undivided family represented by the present karta in respect of the return made by the previous karta under section 28(1) of the Act ?'Kumaraswami Gounder was the karta of a Hindu undivided family till his death of 2nd January, 1950. While examining the accounts relevant to the assessment year 1948-49, the Income-tax Officer came across certain unexplained cash credits of Rs. 16,355 in the suspense account, and bank deposits of Rs. 13,468 which found no place in the business books. On the date of this discovery, the previous karta, Kumarswami Gounder, had died and his son, Nataraja Gounder, had become the karta of the assessee, the Hindu undivided family. This Nataraja Gounder was unable to explain the credits in the suspense account and only stated that the amounts should have been gi...
V.M. Periasamy Chettiar and Co. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR134(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question raised in this reference application under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is whether the refusal to register the firm constituted under an instrument dated 2, 1952, between the partners of a firm called V.M. Periasami Chettiar & Co. and one Palaniappa Kandar, by the department and the Tribunal under section 26A of the Act is proper. It is somewhat strange that though the language of the Act and the rules governing registration of firms is fairly lucid and plain, quite a large number of cases raise the dispute between the assessee and the revenue on the question of the registrability of the firm concerned. The frequency of such disputes suggests that the assessees do not generally realise that the benefit of registration under the Act is a privilege which can be availed of only on the strict fulfilment of the requirements of law. We must also observe that the department is over-punctilious in considering applications for registration of firms and is ...
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR825(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In relation to the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1952-53, the Income-tax Officer found that the dividend declared by the assessee, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, to be less than 60 per cent. of the profits available for distribution. The Income-tax Officer also held that, having regard to the profits made, the company could have declared a larger dividend. He accordingly applied section 23A and made an order that a further sum of Rs. 77,692 shall be deemed to have been distributed as dividends among the six shareholders of the company. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, contending that on the basis of the book profits, which represented the profits available for distribution, the company had declared dividends in excess of 60 per cent. thereof. This plea was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the adjusted book profits, that is to say, profits as finally determi...
Addison Paints and Chemicals (Private), Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ440
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two cases have come before the High Court for decision on a reference under Rule 17, Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Act. The question raised in these references is regarding the correct interpretation of Section 100(2) of the Madras City Municipal Act as well as the Proviso (a) (ii) thereof.2. Premises Nos. 37-A/19 and 37-A/20 on the Madhavaram High Road, Madras, are under the occupation of Messrs. Addison Paints and Chemicals Private, Ltd., and they are utilised for their industry in paints and chemicals. There was first of all an assessment of these premises to property tax and, in appeal, the Taxation Appeal Committee of the Corporation of Madras confirmed the assessment under Section 100(2)(a)(ii) at 6 per cent. of the capital cost of the building less 10 per cent. depreciation. Against this decision, the assessee appealed to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes. The appellant urged that even though the buildings were not actually let out ...
Chennai Ekambareswarar Devastanam. Vs. Collector and Land Acquisition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1966Mad385
ORDER(1) Sri Ekambareswarar Devastanam by its trustees, the petitioner in these two petitions, prays for the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer of Madras to hold a fresh enquiry under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the fixation of the compensation for the lands of the petitioner devastanam which have been acquired. In the alternative, it is prayed that a writ may issue to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The facts are briefly as hereunder.The petitioner owns land R. S. 1/1 of Ayanavaram of an extent of 28 acres 18 cents. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 15-9-1954, proposing to acquire the lands abovementioned. It was in due course followed by the declaration under S. 6 of the Act. This was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 22-9-1954. Along with this notification, the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act...
Tyresoles (India), Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR515(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act arising out of a controversy between the revenue and the assessee, whether the firm of partnership styled Tyresoles (India), Calcutta, is registrable under section 26A of the Act for the assessment year 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, and 1956-57. The Income-tax Officer refused registration and on appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner registration was refused for the first four years, but was granted for the fifth year 1956-57. Both the assessee and the department preferred appeals to the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal which restored the decision of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal however has referred the following questions of law to this court under section 66(1) of the Act at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether the firm as constituted up to September 21, 1950, is the same as the one the carried on the business thereafter with only a change in its constitution 2....
B.D. Narasimha Setty, P. Hanumanthiah Setty Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad166; [1963]14STC94(Mad)
Jagadisan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Prohibition against the Deputy Commercial-tax Officer, Special Circle, Non-resident, Madras, restraining him from proceeding with the collection of sales-tax as per his communication No. Section 10/39BLR dated 8-5-1959, in respect of the assessment year 1954-55 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. 2. The petitioners constitute a firm of partnership carrying on business in silk yarn at Avenue Road, Bangalore. They are residents of the Mysore State. During the years 1953 to 1955, they effected sales of consignments of silk yarn in this State. They claimed to be immune from the levy of sales tax either in the State of Mysore or in this State, on the grounds that their transactions of sales referred to were Inter-State sales governed by Article 286 of the Constitution. After the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the United Motors case (State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd...
K. Sambasivam Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ195
Jagadisan, J.1. This is a Reference Application under the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to this Court isWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on 24th August, 1956, in respect of assessment year 1951-52 is legal? 2. The assessee had a business in Ceylon and he started a new business at Tiruchirapalli in bullion sometime in April, 1950. The Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli, assessed him to tax for the assessment year 1951-52 relevant to the accounting year ended 31st March, 1951. In the books of account of the assessee the sum of Rs. 29,430-8-10 made up of three sums of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 11,430-8-10 was shown as capital. The assessee stated that the sum of Rs. 10,000 was advanced to him by his father-in-law. This was his first version. He later on submitted that he got the amount from his uncle Thambi Pillai Saravanamuthu. The sum of Rs. 8,000 was stated to be given to him by his father who collected out standings d...
K Sambasivam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR335(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference application under the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to this court is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made on August 24, 1956, in respect of assessment year 1951-52 is legal.The assessee had a business in Ceylon and he started a new business at Tiruchirapalli in bullion some time in April, 1950. The Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli, assessed him to tax for the assessment year 1951-52 relevant to the accounting year ended March 31, 1951. In the books of account of the assessee the sum of Rs. 29,430-8-10 made up of the three sums of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 11,430-8-10 was shown as capital. The assessee stated that the sum of Rs. 10,000 was advanced to him by his father-in-law. This was his first version. He later on submitted that he got the amount from his uncle, Thambi Pillai Saravanamuthu. The sum of Rs. 8,000 was stated to be given to him by his father, who collected outstanding due...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »