Chennai Court August 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.
V. Venkatarama Chettiar Vs. M. Duraiswami Mudaliar and Co., by Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ125
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This revision is directed against the concurrent order of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller, Madras, whereby they granted an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant who is carrying on a potato trade in Malayaperumal Street in premises which belong to the respondent. The respondent himself is a businessman carrying on the business of printer and publisher of text-books and other periodicals. The grounds for eviction were two: (1) that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the building for vegetable sellers at a certain rent per diem and (2) that the landlord himself did not possess a non-residential building in Madras for carrying on his business. On the first point it was found by the Rent Controller that a pial in the building was being let out by the tenant to an onion merchant for vending onions in baskets. It is clear from the facts proved in the case that this would not amount to sub-letting as there was neither exclusive occupation of th...
Rukmani Bai Vs. C.R. Govindaswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ421
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. In disposing of the suit, O.S. No. 696 of 1958, the learned City Civil Judge at Madras directed a complaint to be filed against the defendant in the suit and D.W. 1, a witness examined on the side of the defendant for offences under Sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code. He found that D.W. 1 was responsible for bringing about a forged document, and that both defendant and D.W. 1 perjured and gave deliberately false evidence before the Court. In his view, in the interests of justice, it is expedient that both of them should be prosecuted. This direction was given by the learned Judge presumably under the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The point that is now raised before me is whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the filing of the complaint and whether the provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code have been strictly complied with.2. The suit, O.S. No. 696 of 1958, was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,644 from the d...
K.R. Ramachandra Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad280; [1963]48ITR959(Mad); (1953)2MLJ322
Srinivasan, J. 1. The assessment in the present case giving rise to the questions that stand referred to us is under the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee and a brother of his, Raghunath Rao, constituted a Hindu undivided family. Raghunath Rao died on 16th December 1956. The assessee became the sole surviving coparcener of the undivided family and in that capacity became entitled to all the properties of the family. Following upon the death of Raghunath Rao, the assessee made a return for purposes of estate duty and such duty was assessed at Rs. 62,196 by order of the Estate Duty Office dated 30th November 1957. 2. In support of the wealth tax assessment for the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee made a return on 3rd, February 1958. In this return, he claimed his status to be that of a Hindu undivided family. He claimed also to be entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 62,196 being. The estate duty assessed on the death of Raghunath Rao. The Wealth Tax Officer found that the assessee the sole...
Hind Mercantile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR23(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us for determination is :'Whether the aforesaid sums of Rs. 2,35,758 and Rs. 10,303 respectively, paid by way of damages and legal expenses, are allowable in computing the profits and gains of the assessees business under section 10 of the Act ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are these : The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in the export of groundnut oil. Export of groundnut oil is governed by notifications issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Exports, Bombay, form time to time. Broadly stated, the policy of the Government in permitting exports of this commodity varies from period to period, and it is generally indicated for every half-year. The Government of India, through the appropriate department, decides upon such policy and decides also as to the total quantity of the commodity which should be permitted to be exported from the country. The established exporters in the line are granted certai...
K. Muniratnam Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR644(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - These cases relate to assessments made by the Income-tax Officer under section 23 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act subsequent to the failure of the assessee to comply with the terms of a notice issued under section 23 (2) of the Act. In Tax Case No. 145 of 1960 the question that has been referred to us is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the estimate of the share income of the assessee from the partnership firm of Messrs. M. S. Pictures at Rs. 20,000 even though the share income of the partnership firm was eventually ascertained at Rs. 15,09 ?'In T. C. No. 146 of 1960 the question is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was no material before the Appellate Tribunal to justify the decision that Rs. 30,000 should be added to the assessees disclosed income on the basis of an estimate under section 23 (4) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is carrying on bu...
D.D. Italia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR313(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee in the present case is a non-resident. In the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1942-43, 1945-46 and 1946-47, he was a permanent resident of the former Hyderabad State. He was in receipt of income from the taxable territories and it is common ground that this income was being duly assessed. It would appear that the assessee was carrying on a business in abkari contracts, oil mills, etc., in the Hyderabad State. The original assessment for the year 1942-43 was completed on March 29, 1943, on a total income of Rs. 43,454 and the total world income of Rs. 1,18,286. The exact figures of the original assessments in respect of the other two assessment years are not on record, but, as stated already, that he was assessed on the basis of the income derived from the taxable territories at the rate applicable to him total world income as disclosed is not denied. It would appear that, subsequently, examination of his account books, which, it may be menti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Somasundaram Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR650(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question that has been referred to us under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 65,802, being part of the amount due from the Alwaye Textiles Ltd., as per decree of court and not realised is properly a trade debt allowable as a bad debt in the computation of the income for the assessment year 1952-53 ?'Somasundaram Mills Ltd., which will hereinafter be referred to as the assessee, is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The company is carrying on business in spinning and weaving cotton yarn at Coimbatore. The assessee is also a partner in three registered firms of partnership, Messrs. Krishna Ginning Factory, Messrs. Somavilas Ginning Factory and Messrs. Sundaravilas Ginning Factory, holding 7/8, 8/12 and 1/12 shares in each of the three concerns respectively. In this reference, we are not concerned with any question relating to the share income of the assessee in these partnership firms. We are only ...
S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad348
Srinivasan , J.1. In the firm of Ranjaneya Motor Transport constituted by a deed dated 17th December 1951, the assessee is a partner. The other partners in the firm are his wife Shambagammal and one other stranger Sivachidambaram Pillai, the two minor sons of the assessee were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1957-58, the previous- year ending on the 30th September 1956, the assessee claimed that the share of the profit and the interest allowed by the firm on such shares to his wife and the two minor sons should be excluded from the operation of Section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii). During the relevant account year, the share of the profit credited to the accounts of the wife and the two minor sons were the sums of Rs. 1944/, Rs. 23336 and Rs. 19447 respectively. Under a clause or the deed of partnership, members of the firm or persons admitted to the benefits of the partnership were entitled to receive interest on the amounts standing to their credit at the...
S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR160(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In the firm of Anjaneya Motor Transport constituted by a deed dated 17th December, 1951, the assessee is a partner. The other partners in the firm are his wife, Shanbagammal, and one other stranger, Sivachidambaram Pillai. The two minor sons of the assessee were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1957-58, the previous year ending on the 30th September, 1956, the assessee claimed that the share of the profit and the interest allowed by the firm on such shares to his wife and the two minor sons should be excluded from the operation of section 16(3)(a)(i) and (ii). During the relevant account year, the share of the profit credited to the accounts of the wife and the two minor sons were sums of Rs. 19,447, Rs. 23,336 and Rs. 19,447 respectively. Under a clause of the deed of partnership, members of the firm or persons admitted to the benefits of the partnership were entitled to receive interest on the amounts standing to their credit at the...
Babu Mudaliar Vs. Bhaktavatsalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ9
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Appellate Authority under the House Rent Control Act by which a decision of the Rent Controller was set aside and the petition for eviction was remanded to the Rent Controller for trial afresh. The counsel for the petitioner contends that power of remand is not conferred upon the Appellate Authority by the Act (Act XVIII of 1960) and, in support of that contention, he refers to the language of Section 23 of the Act. The relevant Sub-section (3) of that section reads:The Appellate Authority shall call for the records of the case from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and if necessary after making such further inquiry as he thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal. True, explicitly power of remand is not conferred upon the Appellate Authority by the terms of this section. In support of this contention, the counsel also relies upon a Benc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »