Chennai Court October 1963 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.
S.P.A.V. an. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ49
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The following questions stand referred by the Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act:(1) Whether the said garden formed the stock-in-trade of the money-lending business ; and(2) Whether the excess realised on the sale of the same was properly brought to tax ?2. The assessee had been assessed to tax as a Hindu undivided family for the year of assessment 1956-57 relevant to the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1956. The family carried on money-lending business in Kurunegale in Ceylon under the vilasam S.P. AV. AN. A certain estate in Ceylon was purchased by the assessee family on 27th December, 1929, from one Gnanapandian Chettiar for a sum of Rs. 15,000. The said amount was paid in India and the transaction is disclosed in the account books of the family maintained at 'Oor'. Nattukkottai Chettiars who carry on business in foreign parts always maintain an account, at the place of their residence, called the ' Oorkadai' account. As the property was in Ceylon, th...
R. Narasimhachari Vs. Kanakasabapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ256
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the proceedings before the House Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi). The petitioner is the landlord. He filed a petition for the eviction under Section 7(3)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Santhana Ramayyar and his brothers. The respondent was their tenant from 9th June, 1956. The allegation in the petition was that the house was given originally for residential purpose, and that subsequently the respondent is using the front portion for his printing press and residing in the rear portion of the building the tenant was put on notice by the original owner, Santhana Ramayyar, that he is liable to be evicted, as he is using the building for a different purpose. Subsequently Santhana Ramayyar sold the property to the petitioner herein on 20th May, 1958 and the tenant attorned to the petitioner, subsequently there was a. partition between the p...
P.K. Soundararaja Mudaliar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Relig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ236
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Chennaroyaperumal Temple Pagallpatty village. His right as a hereditary trustee is not in question. Sometime in January 1961, certain charges were framed against him and he was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, on 15th February, 1961, the enquiry into those charges was posted to the 22nd April, 1961, and he was asked to be present. On that date it was again re-posted to the 30th of May, 1961, and again to the 2nd of August, 1961. These adjournments were presumably for administrative reasons. On 7th July, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner purported to make an order, which is under challenge in this writ petition, placing the trustee petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges and at the same time, he appointed the Executive Officer of another temple as a fit person to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee. In this writ petitio...
The State of Madras Represented by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ369
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The State of Madras represented by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, the defendant in O.S. No. 102 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, is the Appellant in this appeal. In Ikkarai Bolu vampatti Village of the Coimbatore District there is a temple of the deity Angalamman. The plaintiffs in the suit claim to be the hereditary trustees of the temple. The Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board negatived the plaintiff's prayer for declaration about their hereditary trusteeship. Their appeal to the Commissioner of the Board was also dismissed. Then they filed a suit before the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore under Section 62 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for the necessary declaration about their hereditary trusteeship after setting aside the orders adverse to them passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Board. The defenda...
Sp. Av. an. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR1(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The following questions stand referred by the Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act :'(1) Whether the said garden formed the stock-in-trade of the money-lending business; and(2) Whether the excess realised on the sale of the same was properly brought to tax ?'The assessee had been assessed to tax as a Hindu undivided family for the year of assessment 1956-57 relevant to the accountings year ended on March 31, 1956. The family carried on money-lending business in Kurunegale in Ceylon under the vilasam SP.AV.AN. A certain estate in Ceylon was purchased by the assessee family on December 27, 1929, from one Gnanapandian Chettiar for a sum of Rs. 15,000. The said amount was paid in India and the transaction is disclosed in the account books of the family maintained at Oor. Nattukottai Chettiars who carry on business in foreign parts always maintain an account, at the place of their residence, called the Oorkadai account. As the property was in Ceylon the income from the pr...
R. G. S. Naidu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR559(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The following question has been referred to us under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 72,315 in the assessable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54 ?'The assessee is a firm of partnership carrying on business as managing agents of a textile mill at Coimbatore called 'The Coimbatore spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.' It will be convenient to refer to the managed company in the judgment as the company. The assessee firm was appointed as managing agents for a period of twenty years from October 1, 1944. Clause (3) of the managing agency agreement provided the following remuneration for the services to be rendered by the managing agents :(a) an office remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per mensem;(b) a commission at the rate of 1 percent. on all purchases of cotton and stores and 2 1/2 percent. on all capital expenditure in...
Buddha Pictures by Managing Partner, Bhimsingh Vs. Fourth Income-tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad429; [1964]52ITR321(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle V, the first respondent, to forbear from collecting from it the sum of Rs. 20,000 in pursuance of his notices Under Section 46(5-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act dated 18-6-1959 an;! 21-3-1961.2. The facts are briefly as follows. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as producer of films. The first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 18-6-1959 Under Section 46(5-A) of the Income-tax Act stating that it had engaged the services of a certain T. S. Baliah a cine artist, and, that the remuneration payable by the petitioner to Baliah stood attached and that it should be credited to the Government as he was in arrears of income-tax to the extent of about Rs. 46,819-15. The petitioner sent a reply on 26-6-1959, and submitted that it had not en...
K. Sundaramoorthy Mudaliar Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ152
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings in an Unnumbered Original Suit of 1962 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ranipet. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed a suit for a declaration that the equitable mortgage executed by the second defendant to the first defendant on 20th May, 1953 is not binding on the plaintiff.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows. The property originally belonged to the second defendant and he sold the same to the plaintiff on 30th August, 1958. It is only after this purchase the plaintiff came to know that there was an equitable mortgage in respect of the property created by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and that in respect of that the first defendant had obtained a decree and that execution proceedings are now pending. In order to remove the cloud to title he had filed the suit for a declaration that the mortgage deed executed...
Buddha Pictures Vs. the Fourth Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ263
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle V, the first respondent, to forbear from collecting from it the sum of Rs. 20,000 in pursuance of his notices under Section 46(5-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act dated 18th June, 1959 and 21st March, 1961.2. The facts are, briefly, as follows. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as producer of films. The first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 18th June, 1959, under Section 46(5-A) of the Income-tax Act stating that it had engaged the services of certain T.S. Baliah, a cine artiste, and, that the remuneration payable by the petitioner to Baliah stood attached and that it should be credited to the Government as he was in arrears of income-tax to the extent of about Rs. 46,819-15. The petitioner sent a reply on 26th June, 1959, a...
Manickavasagam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR292(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the point in issue between the department and the assessee is an regards the scope and applicability of section 16(1)(c) of the Act to the facts and circumstances of the case. The question that stands referred is :'Whether the sums of Rs. 2,52,350 and Rs. 2,78,222 representing the gross amounts of dividend on the shares transferred by the assessee to the Thiagarajar Educational Trust were correctly included in the computation of income for the assessment for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59, having regard to the third proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, property, business and dividends as a shareholder in various limited companies. A public charitable trust called the Thiagarajar Educational Trust was constituted on April 29, 1956, by the assessee along with his brother, Sundaram Chettiar, and his fat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »