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.
K.i. Kangu Vs. Ahmed Unnissa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ97
Veeraswami, J.1. On the ground that the respondent bona fide required a portion: of the premises No. 80/3, Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Madras, the petitioner who has been a tenant therein for about 10 years has been directed to be evicted and this order was confirmed in appeal. This petition is directed against the eviction The requirement of owner's occupation was rested on the basis that the petitioner's-son-in-law who is a practising medical man wants the portion for opening a clinic. It is common ground that the petitioner's only daughter is living with her in the other portions of the house and has grand-children by her. It is also common, ground that the son-in-law is living with her along with his wife and children. The Courts below were of the view that the words ' his own occupation ' in Section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, should be read in a liberal sense and that so read, the instant case would also fall within the ambit of those words. In t...
G. K. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR756(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The questions referred for our determination are : '(1) Whether the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) are ultra vires as offending article 14 of the Constitution of India.(2) Whether the dividend income of the divided minor son is assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee and his minor son were members of a Hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1952-53. There was a division between them effected under a registered deed of partition on the 23rd July, 1952. Thereafter the assessee was assessed as an individual.On the 4th July, 1956, the assessee transferred certain shares to his minor divided son. During the year ended 31st March, 1957, a sum of Rs. 18,165 was received as dividend on the above said shares. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the total income of the assessee, the father, applying the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. It was contended before the Income-tax Offi...
Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR332(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred for the decision of this court is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim sum of Rs. 23,200 paid to Keshavlal Talakchand as a valid deduction in the computation of its total income under section 10(2) of the Act ?'The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of spinning cotton. In the calendar year 1953, the previous year for the assessment year 1954-55, an agreement was entered into by the assessee with one Keshavlal Talakchand, said to be a yarn dealer of Bombay . On foot of this agreement, the assessee obtained a loan of two lakhs of rupees from the Bombay dealer. Over and above the interest of nine per cent. per annum on the loan, the assessee agreed in effect that he would pay a sum representing two per cent. on the mills prices of the yarn produced and sold by the assessee mill. The agreement made it appear as if all the production of the assessee mill to the extent of r...
V. Ramanathan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR640(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act raises the question, whether a particular transaction of purchase and sale of a tea estate by the assessee amounts to an adventure in the nature of a trade.The assessee, who is a member of the Nagarathar community, is a director of an incorporated company called Avra Ltd.In February, 1947, he became divided from the other members of his undivided family, and got assets worth about four lakhs of rupees. He purchased from one V. S. P. Subramaniam Chettiar a tea estate in Ceylon called Agra Oya Estate, which consisted of 382 acres bearing mature crops and 62 acres of unplanted area. He purchased this estate for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 on December 5, 1953. He had the services of a broker in making the purchase to whom he paid a brokerage of Rs. 1,250. Even on the date of the purchase the estate was under mortgage for a sum of Rs. 67,500 in favour of the Industrial Credit Corporation, Ceylon. Necessarily he took over ...
J.M. Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ67
Jagadisan, J.1. The question that has been referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is:Whether the assessee is a resident for the assessment year 1950-51 within the meaning of Section 4-A (a)(ii) of the Act. 2. The assessee is a native of Koothanallur in Tanjore district, owning properties in India, and also having a business interest in a foreign firm called J. M. Mohammad Ismail Fils Aziz & Co., carrying on business at Saigon, Indo-China. His main source of income is from his foreign assets. For the assessment year 1950-51 in respect of the previous year 1949-50, he declared his status as that of a non-resident. The Department as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however declared him as ' a resident but not ordinarily resident.' The contention of the assessee is that on the materials on record he should not be declared as 'a resident' within the meaning of Section 4-A (a)(ii).3. The following facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a co-owner of a re...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estate of the Late Sri N. Veeraswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ310
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The validity of a re-assessment upon a share-holder following an assessment upon the company under Section 23-A of the Act is raised in the question referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Act. The facts relevant are these.2. The assessee was a share-holder in the Gobald Motor Service, Limited. The Income-tax Officer applied the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act to the company in respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-50. Undoubtedly, the shareholders became assessable on the basis of the deemed distribution of dividend in respect of their assessment years 1948-49 and 1950-51. The orders under Section 23-A in respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-50 of the company were made on 15th February, 1954 and 25th June, 1956, respectively. The Income-tax Officer commenced proceedings under Section 34 of the Act in respect of the deemed distribution against the assessee, and these notices were issued even before the dates on which orders under Secti...
J. M. Abdul Aziz Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR602(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question that has been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is :'Whether the assessee is a resident for the assessment year 1950-51 within the meaning of section 4A(a)(ii) of the Act ?'The assessee is a native of Koothanallur in Tanjore district, owning properties in India, and also having a business interest in a foreign firm called J. M. Mohammad Ismail Fils Aziz & Co., carrying on business at Saigon, Indo china. His main source of income is from his foreign assets. For the assessment year 1950-51 in respect of the previous year 1949-50, he declared his status as that of a non-resident. The department as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have now declared him as 'a resident but not ordinarily resident'. The contention of the assessee is that on the materials on record he should not be declared as a 'resident' within the meaning of section 4A(a) (ii).The following facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a co-owner of a residentia...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. Estate of Late Sri N. Veera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR13(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The validity of a reassessment upon a shareholder following an assessment upon the company under section 23A of the Act is raised in the question referred to us under section 66(1) of the Act. The facts relevant are these :The assessee was a shareholder in the Gobald Motor Service Ltd. The Income-tax Officer applied the provisions of section 23A of the Act to the company in respect of the assessment years 1947-48 to 1949-50. Undoubtedly the shareholders became assessable on the basis of the deemed distribution of dividend in respect of their assessment years 1948-49 and 1950-51. The orders under section 23A in respect of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1949-1950 of the company were made on the 15th February, 1954, and 25th June, 1956, respectively. The Income-tax Officer commenced proceedings under section 34 of the Act in respect of the deemed distribution against the assessee, and these notices were issued even before the dates on which orders under section 23A were ...
Vr. Kr. S. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR328(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in the Federated Malay States. During the war, some of the properties, admittedly the stock-in-trade of the assessees business, suffered damage. In computing the profits and the loss of such businesses which sustained losses during the war period, the Central Board of Revenue formulated a special scheme according to which all the losses claimed by the assessee during the war period were allowed to be set off successively against the assessments of 1942-43 and 1941-42. It is common ground that in pursuance of this scheme the assessee obtained reductions of his tax liability in respect of losses computed at Rs. 65,197 and Rs. 1.29,028 during those two years.In the post-war year, a War Damages Commission was constituted in the Federated Malay States and person whose properties had suffered damage as a result of the war were granted compensation. During the period relevant to the assessment years 1954-55 and 1956-57, th...
R. P. Kandaswami and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR344(Mad)
The judgment of the court was deliver byJAGADISAN J. - In this reference under the Indian Income-tax Act the validity of the assessments on the assessee in respect of the two assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 is called in question.The assessee is an association of persons conducting an educational institution at Rishivandayam in South Arcot Dt. For the two assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer did not issue notice under section 22(2) of the Act. The assessee however submitted voluntary returns of income from the institution, witch is said to be a tutorial institute, presumably in response to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Act. The income returned for these two years was Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 7,481 respectively. On 6th February, 1958, the Income-tax Officer served notice under section 22(20 read with section 34 and required the assessee to submit returns of income for the said two years. The assessee wrote to the officer on 14th February, 1958, submi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »