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.
Short Brothers (P.) Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Salem.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR315(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that arises in this writ petition calls for an interpretation of section 2 (6A) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It arises in the following manner. Messrs. Short Brothers (Private) Ltd. own certain coffee estates in Salem District. The company sold all of its assets on December 24, 1959. The assets sold included the lands, buildings and machinery. By a resolution passed on February 6, 1960, the company went into voluntary liquidation. The sale proceeds realised was in excess of Rs. 11 lakhs. The liquidator made a distribution to the shareholders of a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs which represented the excess of the sale proceeds over the book-value of the assets. In the view that the excess so distributed did not represent the profits or accumulated profits, the liquidator did not deduct tax on such distribution. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated 19th December, 1960, proposed to treat the sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs so distributed as dividend falling within...
Gordon Woodroffe and Co. Ltd., London Vs. Income-tax Officer, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR12(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle B, Madras, from proceeding further in the matter of assessment in pursuance of his notice dated March 15, 1962, purporting to be under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act.The facts are these : The petitioner, Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe & Co. Ltd., London, is a limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom. It has its registered office at Carrington House, 130, Regent Street, London. It will be convenient to refer to the petitioner as the 'London Company' in this judgment. This company holds shares in an Indian company called Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe & Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. The London company has no business activity in the taxable territory of India and its only income in this territory is the dividend paid by the Indian company in respect of the shares held by it. For the...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. N. Venkatarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad281
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The question involved in this reference which has been made by Kailasam, J. relates to the period of limitation applicable to a suit for redemption instituted by one co-mortgagor against another who had earlier redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession of the mortgage property. Recently this Court had occasion to consider this very question in Valliamma Champaka v. Sivathanu Pillai, L. P. A. No. 18 of 1961 : : AIR1964Mad269 , where a Full Bench, by a majority held that in regard to mortgages created prior to the Transfer of Property Act, a redeeming co-mortgagor would be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee whom he redeemed, and that he in turn would be liable to be redeemed by his co-mortgagor with respect to the latter's share of the mortgaged property within the period of limitation prescribed for the redemption of the original mortgage or with in a period of 12 years from the data when as a consequence of his redeeming, he obtaine...
Babu Gurukkal Vs. the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ384
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit to set aside an order of the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments dated 19th April, 1956, as confirmed by the Commissioner on 27th July, 1956, on appeal. By that order, the Deputy Commissioner declined to recognise the plaintiff as the hereditary trustee of Tirumudi Vinayagar and Chelliamman Temples-at Tiruvanmiyur in Saidapet Taluk. The trial Judge agreed with the view of the Department and dismissed the suit. He was prepared to say that the oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiff showed that he and his ancestors were looking after the affairs of the Vinayagar Temple ; but, at the same time, he thought that there was documentary evidence to hold that the plaintiff's claim to hereditary tursteeship had not been proved.2. This is a case of two small temples of which Chelliamman Temple has no endowments whatever. Tirumudi Vinayagar has been endowed with an extent of 1 acre 31 cents of w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›