Chennai Court March 1963 Judgments
Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR18(Mad)
This revision arises out of proceedings under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitioner is Ouchterlony Valley Estates Ltd., a limited company engaged in growing tea and coffee and also in the manufacture of tea. It owns 1,400 acres of tea and 3,000 acres of coffee in Gudalur taluk in the Nilgiris District. This large area is divided into several sections, each being called an estate. The company is an assessee under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act (5 of 1955). For the assessment year 1960-61, the company filed a return showing a net income of Rs. 2,09,096. A month later, that is, on October 17, 1960, it filed a revised return showing a net loss of Rs. 93,018, stating that there were certain arithmetical inaccuracies in the earlier return. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer considered the return, checked the accounts, disallowed certain claims, added up the income from certain trees and made an assessment under section 17(3) of the Act. He determined the net agricultural i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumbalingam and ors. Vs. the Management of the Indian Metal and Met ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad315; (1964)ILLJ81Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by three employees of the Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation, Madras, represented by the Secretary of the Workers' Union of that establishment, from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in W. P. No. 925 of 1958, before the learned Judge.2. The facts are within a very limited compass, as far as the present appeal is concerned. The allegation of the management is that from 18-2-1958 onwards, while an industrial dispute was pending, the workers resorted to a strike without previous notice, in any event, according to the version of the management, there was a stay-in-strike orthe workers from 22-2-1958 until 26-2-1958. In this context of facts, the management dismissed the present appellants for misconduct under Section 33(2)(b) of the industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, which empowers the management, during the pendency of an industrial dispute, to dismiss the concerned workmen 'tor any misconduct not connected with the dis...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. Fifth Additional Income-tax Officer, Coimb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR322(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The petitioner is common in all these cases. By these petitions under section 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to call for the records relating to the levy of penal interest under section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act with reference to his assessments for the years 1951-52, 1952-53, and to quash the levy and demand for payment of the penal interest on the ground that such levy is bad in law and wholly without jurisdiction.The petitioner is the karta of a Hindu undivided family. It is not denied that as part of the assessment for the above three years, certain demands, inclusive of penal interest under section 18A were made upon the assessee. The petitioner has so far discharged a portion of the liability towards the tax and there is a balance still payable by him. The department took steps towards recovery by issue of certificates to the Collector and the Collector has attached the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Films Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR874(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - Messrs. Devi Films (Pte.) Ltd., referred to as the assessee in this judgment, is the applicant in these two petitions filed under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is carrying on business as financier of production of motion pictures and as dealer in cinematographic machines and spare parts. Before setting out the question of law sought to be referred, the facts giving rise to these petitions will have to be stated. They are as follows :The assessee entered into an agreement on 6th July, 1955, with a certain Dinshaw K. Tehrani who had ventured upon the production of a cinema film called Raja Rani. Under this agreement the assessee agreed to lend Tehrani a sum of Rs. 3,80,000. The money was lent as per the terms of the agreement, but Tehrani could not complete the production due to lack of funds. The assessee entered into a further agreement with Tehrani on 31st January, 1956, and agreed to provide him with further funds to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000. In all,...
Tag this Judgment!Govind M. Asrani Vs. Jairam Asrani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad456; (1963)2MLJ433
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is filed against the judgment of Kailasam J. raises an important point relating to procedurein a probate action, namely, whether, in a pending application for the issue of probate it the sole executor dies, before proving the will, it will be competent for a legatee or any other person interested, to intervene and continue the proceedings to prove the will and obtain letters of administration in his own right. That question has been answered in the affirmative in Rama Naidu v. Rangayya Naidu, ILR 56 Mad 346 : AIR 1933 Mad 114, but the correctness of that decision has been challenged before us.2. The appellant and the two respondents are the children of one Rao Bahadur Matoomal A. Asrani who died on 29-5-1960. It is alleged that the deceased had left behind him a will in which he had appointed Harichand u. Kalre, the husband of the second respondent as the sole executor Under the said will the children of the testator are the principal legatees...
Tag this Judgment!Marid Hajee Mohammed Ismail Vs. Chinnathayi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ594Mad
Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800 to the respondent Chinnathayi Ammal, the widow of Andi Munuswami, who met with his death by falling into a lime pit in the appellant's tannery on 17 September 1958. The accident was reported by the appellant to the sub-inspector of police and also to the Inspector of Factories to whom he appears to have stated that the deceased fell into the pit on account of fits. This statement was repeated before the Commissioner when the question of compensation was being considered by him, but on the evidence let in before him, the Commissioner held that the deceased died as a result of his falling into the lime pit and not because of his fall due to fits and I am in complete agreement with this conclusion. 2. So far as the compensation awarded is concerned, two objections are urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant ;(1) that the deceased be...
Tag this Judgment!Vedantham Raghaviah Vs. Third Additional Income-tax Officer, City Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR314(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Third Additional Income-tax Officer, attached to City Circle V, Madras, passed an order on March 23, 1960, purporting to be one under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act and levied a tax of Rs. 49,965.08 on the petitioner for the assessment year 1955-56. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said order and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing the same.The facts leading up to this writ petition are briefly as follows : The petitioner (assessee) is a professional cinedance director. He was also a partner of a firm called Vinodha Pictures, carrying on business of production of motion pictures. The firm of partnership was constituted by a deed dated January 20, 1950. At the inception there were four partners including the petitioner. This partnership functioned between January 20, 1950, and June 27, 1952. One of the partners, Subburam, retired from the firm and a fresh partnership was constituted between the other...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Transports Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR442(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has referred the following question of law to this court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether the word new in section 10(2)(via) of the Income-tax Act could be construed with reference to the assessable entity or the assets on which depreciation is claimed ?'The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in transport service. The partnership consists of the father Veerappa Gounder and his four sons. The business was originally carried on by the father and his sons who together constituted a Hindu undivided family. The family was disrupted and the members of the family entered into a partition arrangement by a deed dated September 30, 1957. The very next day, on October 1, 1957, the erstwhile members of the family constituted themselves into a firm of partnership taking over the joint family transport business as the business of the partnership. That the entire business of the Hindu undivided family was tak...
Tag this Judgment!C. Chenchamma Vs. K. Kumaraswami Naidu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad397; (1963)2MLJ172
1. I have heard learned counsel on both sides on the merits of this civil miscellaneous second appeal. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the execution petition filed by the appellant before the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvallur E. P. N. 466 of 1955 is barred by Limitation or barred by the provisions of Section 48, C. P. C. The course of execution proceedings is not fully depicted in the judgment of the Courts below, but, however, I shall refer to the facts as they appear and as they are set out in these judgments.2. The appellants obtained a simple money decree recoverable from the respondents and some others on 15-3-1941 in O. S. No. 546 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sholinghur. He filed the petition E. P. No. 116 of 1953, in the Sholinghur Court for execution of the decree. The execution proceedings appear to have been transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor and again from the Chittoor Court to the District Munsif Court, T...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ranganathan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad432; [1963]49ITR137(Mad); (1963)2MLJ531
Srenivasan, J. 1. This is a reference made to this Court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, and the question of law referred tc this Court is the following:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ot the case, the properties mentioned in schedules B, C, and D of the registered deed, dated 21-7-1949, were correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass under Section 10 of the Act.'2. One Annadurai Aiyangar died on the 19th February 1954. He left surviving him his widow, three sons and three daughters. The applicant is the eldest of the sons. He, as one of the accountable persons, furnished an account of the estate. In the original account filed by him, certain properties were not included. In respect of one such item, a house property, the applicant claimed that it belonged to him exclusively, and with regard to the rest, the contention was that the deceased Annadurai Aiyangar, who had acquired them, had thrown them into the family hotchpot so ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »