Chennai Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. Srinivasan and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR788(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This is a consolidated reference and a common statement of the case has been submitted by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Act. The five assessees whose cases have given rise to the question are directors and shareholders in Kasturi and Sons Private Ltd. During the account year ended on 31st of March, 1956, relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the assesses were employed in various capacities in the company for which they were paid salaries and allowances. These assessees had each what is called a current account in the books of the company. It is common ground that they used to draw from the funds of the company various amounts for their private purposes and also pay into this current account amounts by way of cash. During the year, the balance was fluctuating either in favour of or against the assessees. The company is not one in which the public is substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A. In the orders of assessment, the Income-tax Office...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Indian Metal and Metallurgical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR240(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The assessee in this reference application under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is a registered firm of four partners carrying on business as manufacturers of stainless steel-ware, brass-sheets and circles. It maintains its books of accounts on the mercantile system. In the year of account ended April 12, 1956, the relevant 'previous year' for the assessment year 1956-57, it credited a sum of Rs. 5,600 to a separate account called 'gratuity reserve account'. This amount represented approximately fifteen days wages of all its employees or workmen, who were in its service during the year of account. The stated object of the assessee in carrying this amount of Rs. 5,600 from and out of the profits of the year to the 'gratuity reserve account' is to meet an eventual liability in case some of the workers happen to be retrenched at some point of time in future.According to the assessee, this was a statutory obligation or burden imposed upon it under section 25F of the...
T. M. Abdul Rahim Sahib and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR508(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in manufacture and sale of beedies. The assessment year is 1954-55, the previous year relevant to which ended on the 31st March, 1954. It would appear that during the account year 1952-53, the excise authorities verified the stock of tobacco with the assessee and found certain shortage. Since the commodity is excisable and excise duty has to be paid as and when tobacco is removed for the purpose of manufacture, these shortages were, under the Excise Rules, deemed to be tobacco which had been taken out without payment of excise duty. Accordingly, demand notices were issued by the excise authorities on 30th July, 1953, for a sum of duty of Rs. 1,590-12-0. Two demand notices covering a duty of Rs. 4,961-8-0 were met by the assessee by a payment on the 5th September, 1953. Lastly, another demand for Rs. 1,404-6-0 was paid on the 5th January, 1954. The total of these amounts came to Rs. 7,856-10-0. The assessee claimed t...
Basantlal Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR541(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a partner in General Swadeshis, a firm registered under the Income-tax Act. The previous year of the assessee ended on the 12th November, 1955. In his assessment for the assessment year 1956-57, he claimed as a permissible deduction a sum of Rs. 2,000 paid as salary to his nephew, V. P. Gupta, for services rendered in connection with the assessees interest in the affairs of the firm of General Swadeshis. It may be noticed that this remuneration of salary paid to Gupta was not salary paid by the firm. What was sought by the assessee was a deduction of this amount from his share income in that firm. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for the reason that there was no evidence to show that this expenditure was incurred in order to earn the share income and further that when once the share income of the partner had been ascertained under the provisions of the Act, section 16(1)(b) of the Act prohibited any deduction therefrom. On appeal, the Appellat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. G. Ramakrishnier.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR608(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of profits from K. G. Ramkrishnier and Co. is assessable in the hands of the Hindu undivided family or in the hands of the individual members of the Hindu undivided family ?' arises on the following facts :The Hindu undivided family consisting of the father, K. G. Ramakrishnier and his two adult sons, Perumal Iyer and Venkatakrishna Iyer, was a partner in the firm of K. G. Ramakrishnier and Co., the father representing the family in that firm. In that firm, the other partner was K. G. Sitarama Iyer, who represented an other Hindu undivided family. In this reference, we are concerned with the first-mentioned family. The Hindu undivided family of K. G Ramakrishnier had income from property besides the half share of the income from the firm. Up to and including the assessment year 1957-58, assessments were made on the Hindu undivided family. On 5th February, 1958...
S.A. Ramalinga Mudaliar Vs. T.K. Ratna Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad181; (1963)1MLJ37
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C. J. 1. These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the letters Patent against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai J. adjudicating the appellants in the appeals as insolvents on a petition presented by one of their creditors, namely, the first respondent. There is no dispute now that the debtorshad committed an act of insolvency. But the petition tor adjudication was resisted on the ground that the debtors were in a position to pay their debts, and, even otherwise, the petition was liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process of court. The learned judge has overruled the objections. The short question before us is whether the debtors are well founded in their contention that the petition for adjudication should be dismissed under Section 13(4)(b) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act. The material por-portion of the section runs : 'The Court shall dismiss the petition (a) ..........(b) if the debtor appears and satisfies the court that he is able to pay his debts or...
Velayuthan Pillai Neelakanta Vs. Mathavan Pillai Mathevan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad226; (1963)IMLJ133
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal involves a question of some interest which could be tersely stated in the following form, namely, whether a subsequent suit for redemption of a mortgage would be barred by limitation or application of the principle of res judicata, where, in a prior suit for redemption between the same parties it had been heard and decided that that suit was time-barred with reference to Article 148 of the Limitation Act. The question, in this particular form, does not appear to have been advanced in any of the decisions in the extensive case-law that has been cited before us. The facts essential for an appreciation of the setting in which the question has arisen are simple, and may be stated as follows :2. The property in question belonged to one Esakki Udayamma, who executed a mortgage in respect thereof on 9-4-1058 (M. E.) in favour of Kesavan Padmanabhan. A second mortgage also came into existence on 21-4-1082 (M. E.) in favour of a certain Adichan. Esakki Udayamma...
Karuppa Gounder and ors. Vs. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad245; (1963)1MLJ86
Srinivasan, J. 1. Late Kalianna Gounder, who was murdered on 10-9-1956, was a member of a joint Hindu family, of which the other members were his father, Karuppanna Gounder, the first defendant, and his brother, Chinnaswami, the second defendant. The plaintiffs are the widow and the daughter of the late Kalianna Gounder and they sued for partition of the joint family properties specified in Schedule A and for allotment of an one-third share therein. In respect of the B Schedule properties, they claimed that this item belonged exclusivelyto late Kalianna and his brother, the 2nd defendant, to that they were entitled to a half share therein. Recovery of certain moveables set out in Schedule C was also prayed for. Late Kalianna had insured his life for Rs. 3000 with the fourth defendant insurance Corporation. The first plaintiff claimed to be the nominee under the policy of insurance and sought to recover the entirety of this amount. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the first plaintif...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. B. Nagi Reddy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR178(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This reference arises out of the assessment of one Nagi Reddy to income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant 'previous year' being the calendar year 1955. He received in the year of account Rs. 72,426 and Rs. 5,142 as remuneration from the two companies, 'Vijaya Productions Ltd.' and 'B. N. K. Press Ltd.' respectively, of which he was the managing director. He claimed that this was business income assessable to tax under section to of the Act. This was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer, but on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the claim. The department filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which held that the amount is not to be dealt with under section 10 of the Act, but granted relief to the assessee in allowing a sum of Rs. 29,485 to be set off against the profits of the year. Both the assessee and the department filed an application under section 66 (1) of the Act before the Tribunal, and the following questions stan...
V. Ramanathan, L.R. of the Estate of Late K. Chidambara Reddiar Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ162
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The expression ' legal representative ' occurring in Section 24-B of the Indian Income-tax Act has not been defined under that Act, and the question-raised in this reference application turns upon the proper interpretation of that, expression.2. The following facts are not in dispute. Chidambara Reddiar and Vridhachala Reddiar were two brothers, who originally constituted a Hindu joint family . They became divided in the year 1942. Thereafter each of them was assessed to Income tax as an ' individual' in regard to their respective incomes. Chidambara died issueless on 24th February, 1951, leaving behind his wife Ponnammal. She succeeded to his properties as a limited heir under the Hindu Law. It seems that Chidambaram, was adopting the calendar year as his year of account for purposes of income-tax. The income for the calendar year 1950, the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1951-52, was assessed against Ponnammal treating her as the legal representati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »