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.
M. R. Raju Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR737(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee firm, carrying on business in jaggery, was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 27th January, 1955. There were two partners, M. R. Raju Chettiar, who provided the capital, and S. Raju Chettiar, the working partner. the document set out that the partnership had been carrying on business from 13th September, 1953, though it contained no reference to any instrument governing the partnership. For the assessment year 1955-56, the relevant account year for which ended on 31st March, 1955, an application was made under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the registration for the firm. The document of partnership was enclosed thereto. It is not in dispute that this document specified the shares of the partners in the profits of the firm. It is not in dispute that the application conformed to the requirements of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Income-tax Officer refused registration for the principal reason that 'there was no firm thro...
Sri Agastyar Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR673(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question referred to us for decision under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the assessee trust as a partner in the firm of Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation is exempt from tax under the provisions of section 4(3)(i) of the Act.The relevant facts giving rise to this reference can be briefly stated. Sri Agastyar Trust, Madras, is a trust constituted under the registered deed dated 2nd July, 1944, by one T. N. Venkatarama Chetti. The objects of the trust are many, and some of them are of religious and charitable character. One of the objects of the trust is thus set out in the deed of trust :'To manufacture, buy, sell and distribute pharmaceutical, medicinal, chemical, and other preparations and articles such as medicines, drugs, medicinal and surgical articles, preparations and restoratives or foods.'An item of property held by this trust is a one-third share in a regis...
S.A.O.S. Karuppan Chettiar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad508; (1963)IMLJ127
Jagadisan, J.(1) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against the judgment in S. T. A. No. 40 of 1960 of a Bench of two learned 14 pages of this Court functioning as a Special Appellate Tribunal, under Madras Estates (Supplementary) Act, 1956, Madras Act XXX of 1956. The question for consideration in the Special Tribunal Appeal was whether the village of Kudimari was an 'inam estate' or not, as defined by S. 2(7) of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, Act XXVJ of 1948. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that it was an 'inam estate' but on appeal the Estates Abolition Tribunal reversed that decision and held the contrary. There was appeal under S. 1 and S. 11(2) of Madras Act XXX of 1956 (Special Tribunal App. No. 40 of 1956) and the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal was affirmed. It is against this decision that the present application has been preferred under Art. 133 of the Constitution. (2) The learned Government Pleader appearing for th...
S.V. Narayanaswami Vs. State of Madras Represented by Inspector of Loc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ266
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Jagadisan, J., rejecting a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition with a view to restrain the Inspector of Municipal Council and Local Boards from holding a meeting of the Thenkarai' Panchayat Union Council for the election of its Chairman. Thenkarai is a Panchayat' Development Block formed for the purpose of National Extension Services in villages. The Services in villages. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7 of the Madras Act XXXV of 1958 declared the local area covered by the Thenkarai Block to be a Panchayat Union. Under the Act the affairs of a Panchayat Union is to be administered by a Panchayat Union Council. By a notification, G.O. Ms. No. 2548, dated 22nd September, 1961 the Government declared that the Thenkarai Panchayat Union Council will be constituted as and; from 2nd October, 1961. This notification was made under Se...
R. Vs. Lakshmiah Naidu and Co. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR661(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a firm of four partners. This partnership was appointed as the managing agents of the Kamala Mills Ltd., Coimbatore, under a managing agency agreement entered into in 1935. The terms of the managing agency agreement are not of any relevance to the question in issue in this reference. It appears that one Chidambaram Chettiar entered into an agreement with the assessee on the 8th January, 1955, whereby the assessee agreed to sell or to procure for this Chidambaram Chettiar 2,500 shares of Kamala Mills before a specified date. Another term of this agreement was that the assessee should resign its managing agency of the Kamala Mills Ltd. and that a consideration of Rs. 2,24,000 should be paid therefor to the assessee by this Chidambaram Chettiar. It is common ground that the terms of the agreement were fulfilled and that the resignation of the assessee firm was also accepted by the board of directors of the Kamala Mills Ltd.The previous year of the assessee ...
Pope the King Match Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR495(Mad)
The judgment of court was delivered byJAGADISAN J. - Under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, to state the case raising the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee that Rs. 21,373 constituted an allowable sum of deduction in the year of account.'The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in safety matches owning a factory called 'Pope The King Match Factory' at Kalugumalai, Tirunelveli District. Till the end of the year 1955 this factory was classified as 'category No. 2' for purposes of levy of excise duty. During the year 1954 the assessee found that the production in the factory was higher than in the previous years, and that such production was likely to exceed 5 lakhs gross to match boxes, annual ceiling fixed for category No. 2 factory. This meant that the factory would have to be re-classified ...
A. S. S. R. Guruswami Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR692(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The firm of partnership called A. S. S. R. Guruswami Chettiar and Co., carrying on business in forest coupe contract at Rajapalayam and its surrounding area, was registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act by the department. The firm was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 29th May, 1954. Detailed reference to this instrument will be made later. The firm was registered for the assessment year 1955-56. For the subsequent assessment year 1956-57, an application for renewal of registration signed by four persons claiming to be partners of the firm was preferred to the department. The profits of the previous year ending 31st March, 1956, earned by the firm were divided in the books of account not between the four persons who signed the application for renewal but between two firms (1) A.S.S.R. Sanjeevi Raja, Rajapalayam, and (2) R.K.P. Guruswami Chettiar, Rajapalayam. The Additional Income-tax Officer, Virudhunagar, refused to renew registratio...
In Re: V. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ507
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted under Section 75 of the City Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 (Rs. twenty) in default to rigorous imprisonment for one week.2. The charge-sheet against the petitioner is that he entered into a barber's saloon, took out his slipper and gave a hit on the head of one V. Natarajan (P.W. 1) used vulgar words, abused him, created disturbance and caused annoyance to the public. There is evidence in the case that part of the disorderly behaviour took place even on the road.3. The only point argued in the case is that barber's saloon is not a public place. It is clear from the definition in Section 3 of the City Police Act that a place to which public are granted access is a public places In Mangu Bhai v. Emperor A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 369 a hotel has been held to be a public place. The barber's saloon in this case is one kept under licence granted by the Corporation of Madras under Section 287 of the Madras City Municipal Act and it ...
Estate of A. Mohamed Rowther (by Power Agent) A.M. Kadar Shaw Rowther ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR39(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - One Mohamed Rowther of Muthupet in Tanjore district migrated to Penang in 1938 and carried on a lighterage business in the Penang Harbour. He married two wives in India, by whom he had nine children. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to them in this judgment as the Indian heirs. He also married a Malayan wife and had a son by her. This wife and son would be referred to in this judgment as the Malayan heirs. Mohamed Rowther had a successful business career, and, besides the lucrative business at Penang, he came to own large extent of house properties and agricultural lands in India. During his absence in Malaya, his son-in-law one Dawood Ghani, was managing the properties in India under a power of attorney. Mohamed Rowther executed his last will and testament on 9th August, 1943, and died on 17th August, 1943. His estate devolved upon the two Indian wives, their nine children, the Malayan wife and her only son. Under the will, he had, however, appointed three ex...
T. Sundaram Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. T. Manick ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR287(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - These two reference applications under the Indian Income-tax Act may be dealt with together as they raise a common question as to the interpretation of section 12(1B) of the Act.The facts giving rise to Tax Case No. 185 of 1959 are as follows : One Visalakshi Achi, a shareholder in a company called Panchanayaki Limited incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, borrowed from the company a sum of Rs. 70,000 on August 30, 1945. On her death in the year 1947, Sundaram Chettiar, her son, inherited her estate and became the owner of her shares in the company. It appears that he undertook the liability of his mother to the company and made himself indebted to it for the amount of principal and interest due by her. But he failed to discharge the debt and of course continued to be the shareholder of the company. It is in this state of affairs that sections 2(6A) (e) and 12(1B) of the Act came into the statute book under the Finance Act, 1955, with effect from 1st April, 1955. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »