Chennai Court November 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.
Venkatasami Naidu and ors. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad434
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal from the judgment of Jagadisan J., arises out of an application filed by the appellants herein for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Krishnagiri, to make a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was delivered on 22nd September, 1957. Within six weeks therefrom, on 7-10-1967, the appellants addressed a letter to the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed us compensation and stating that the amount of compensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low. The letter which is in tamil further reads :'As you have not taken into account our objections and the record produced by us and as you have not included the value of the trees, the amount now determined by you is very low. We hereby make known to you that we are not in a position to accept that amount as compensation.'R...
J.M.A. Mohammed Ismail, Minor by Mother and Guardian T.M.S. Ayesha Bee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad556
Jagadisan, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of eertiorari to quash the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Manmargudi, Tanjore Dt. on the ground that they are manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitions were originally heard by one of us. In view of the importance of the question raised, they have been placed before a Division Bench for final disposal2. It would be enough to refer to the tacts in W. P. 392 of 1961, as the facts in the other three petitions are precisely the same. The petitioner in W. P. No 392 of 1961 is a minor Muslim represented by his mother and guardian one Ayesha Beevi. The minor owns agricultural lands in Tanjore District. An application was filed before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on his behalf for composition of the tax Under Section 65 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act 1.955 which will be referred to as the Act in this judgment, for the assessment year 1958-59. The a...
Fiaz Ahmed and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC201(Mad)
Jagdisan, J.1. This tax revision petition arises out of proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The question raised is the assessability to tax of the petitioners, and so far as we are able to see, the exact point that arises for determination is not covered by any direct decision of this Court.2. The petitioners are tanners at Ranipet. For the assessment year 1959-60, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arcot, assessed them under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 78,708-13, which included the sum of Rs. 74,205-46 being the purchase value of wattle bark and other dyeing and tanning materials. The petitioners contended that they were not dealers in tanning materials and that they would not, therefore, be assessable to tax. This contention was not accepted by the taxing officer, and there was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The same contention was reiterated but without success. The appellate authority held that the p...
Amna Bai Hajee Issa Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ198
K. Srinivasan, J.1. For the year ended 31st March, 1958, relevant to the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee claimed a deduction from her income of a payment of Rs. 2,965 paid as interest on borrowings for the purpose of investment, audit fees of Rs. 150 and stationery expenses of Rs. 24. These allowances were claimed as against her share of profit resulting from her partnership in the firm of Messrs. Thayub Mohammad Haji Moosa & Co., Madurai, hereinafter referred to as Thayub, Madurai. The Income-tax Officer refused the claim on the ground that all expenditure had to be claimed in the firm's assessment under Section 10 of the Act. When the matter went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the authority found that the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000 from Messrs. T. S. Haji Moosa Co., Madras, with whom she had a running account and that this amount had been invested as capital in Thayub, Madurai. The Madras firm into which all her income, both the share incom...
Venkatasami Naidu and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ262
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal from the judgment of Jagadisan, J., arises out of an application filed by the appellants herein for the issue of a Writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar and Land Acquistition Officer, Krishnagiri, to make a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act. The Award was delivered on 22nd September, 1957. Within six weeks therefrom, on 7th October, 1957, the appellants addressed a letter to the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed as compensation and stating that the amount of compensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low. The letter which is in Tamil further reads:As you have not taken into account our objections and the record produced by us and as you have not included the value of the trees, the amount now determined by you is very low. We hereby make known to you that we are not in a position to accept that amount as compensa...
East India Industries (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ441
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., upholding in part the demand made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner upon the appellant for payment of the employer's contribution for the period from 1st March, 1954 to 31st March, 1958, in accordance with the scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.2. The appellant is a private limited company running a factory for the manufacture of waterproof packing paper and tarpaulin. The process adopted in manufacturing the first article is described to be to smear with tar a sheet of paper and then superimpose another like sheet and press them together. The product, it is claimed, has the qualities of a waterproof paper with the advantage of flexibility. The other product, tarpaulin, is manufactured by treating jute gunnies with tar. According to the appellant the number of workers in the factory did not exceed fifty except on one day in each year during the relevant period. The Reg...
Amna Bai Hajee Issa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR835(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - For the year ended March 31, 1958, relevant to the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee claimed a deduction from her income of a payment of Rs. 2,965 paid as interest on borrowings for the purpose of investment, audit fees of Rs. 150 and stationery expenses of Rs. 24. These allowances were claimed as against her share of profit resulting from her partnership in the firm of Messrs. Thayub Mohammed Hajee Moosa and Co., Madurai, hereinafter referred to as Thayub, Madurai. The Income-tax Officer refused the claim on the ground that all expenditure had to be claimed in the firms assessment under section 10 of the Act. When the matter went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the authority found that the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs. 90,000 from Messrs. T. S. Hajee Moosa and Company, Madras, with whom she had a running account and that this amount had been invested as capital in Thayub, Madurai. The Madras firm into which all her income, both the share ...
Rajah Sir M. A. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Special Inves ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR504(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - These are two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In W.P. No. 1023 of 1961, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition to forbear the Wealth-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle 'A', Madras, from taking further proceedings, pursuant to the notices issued by him on 15th of June, 1960, and 18th of August, 1961. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1060 of 1961 also prays for a writ of prohibition for restraining the Expenditure tax Officer Special Investigation Circle 'A', Madras, from taking further proceedings in pursuance of his notice dated 24th of August 1960. The main attack of the petitioners in these two petitions is levelled against the validity of the charging provision of the Wealth tax Act and the Expenditure-tax Act.The petitioner in W.P. No. 1023 of 1961 states that he is the manager of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons, and that he is an assessee on the file of the Wealth-tax Officer, Special Invest...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Wahab and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad367; 1964CriLJ303
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This reference, which has been made by Kailasam J: arises out of an appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor against an order passed by the Sub-Magistrate, Papanasam, acquitting respondents 1 to 6 herein of certain offences connected with and relating to an alleged improper abstraction and use of electrical energy. The question that falls to tie decided on this reference can he formulated thus:'Whether a dishonest abstraction, consumption and or use of electrical energy, which is statutorily made a theft by virtue of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, will amount to an offence against that Act, or one under; Section 379 of the I. P. C.'To appreciate the significance of the question, and indeed1 to examine it, it will be necessary first to briefly set out the history, of the proceedings, which have led up to this reference. Abdul Wahab, the first respondent: before us, is a resident of Pandaravadai in Tanjore Dt. In connection with the marriage of his dau...
Modern theatres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR683(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - The question that stand referred to us are these :'(1) Whether there were materials for the Tribunals to hold that the dates of delivery on the agreements with G. L. Roche and M. S. Srinivasan and Mahadeva Ayyar aforesaid were within the previous year for assessment year 1946-47 ?(2) Whether the reassessment under section 34(1)(a) is valid ?'The assessee, the Modern Theatres Ltd., Madras, is a public limited company producing and distributing films. It entered into several contracts with various distributors and exhibitors on the basis of written agreements with them. For the year ended 30th September, 1945, the previous year to the assessment year 1946-47, the assessee received consideration on the agreements from the various distributors. The assessment proceedings were completed on June 15, 1947. In the year 1954, the than Income-tax Officer submitted a report to the Commissioner of Income-tax. He stated in his report that in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »