Chennai Court January 1964 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.
A. Lakshmanan, Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad381; [1964]53ITR780(Mad)
(1) The assessee left India for Fiji Islands in 1922. He remained there till 1948. During that period, he engaged himself as an employee for some time and later had an independent business. He acquired certain properties, one of which was a house which he constructed in 1939. On his return to India in 1948, he brought with him the cash that was available. Subsequently, through his friends and others at Fiji, the other assets left behind were sold and the sale proceeds were remitted to India. Such remittances amounted to Rs. 9,300, Rs. 24,074 and about Rs. 31,000 in the account years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The Income-tax Officer started proceedings under S. 34 in the view that these amounts brought into the taxable territories came out of the profits form business carried on in the Fiji Islands. The contention of the assessee was that these amounts represented remittances out of capital. But this contention was repelled and assessments were made....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P. Veeraswami Nainar Bus Owner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad533; [1965]55ITR35(Mad)
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This reference made at the instance of the revenue, raises the following questions:1. Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of development rebate under the provisions of S. 10(2)(vi-b) of the Income-tax Act in respect of a new bus and a new lorry installed after 31-12-1957, even though the necessary reserve, in accordance with S. 10(2)(vi-b), as it stood at the relevant time, had not been made?2. Whether the direction given to the Income-tax Officer at this stage that the said allowance may be granted to the assessee, on production of the books before the Income-tax Officer, is justified?The facts giving rise to this reference are these. The assessee (a Hindu undivided family) had business in cement and fertilisers. The family had also in business in bus transport and lorry service. Besides, it owned two rice mills. For the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being the previous financial year, the assessee submitted a return s...
Vasudev Mudaliar Vs. Caledonian Insurance Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad159
(1) This second appeal raises an important question as to the rights of an insurer to sue in his own name to recover damages from a third party, by whose negligence the assured's car met with an accident and was totally damaged, but who was fully indemnified by the insurer under a comprehensive policy. On that question, the courts below have differed, the lower appellate court, in a reversing judgment, holding such a suit to be maintainable and decreeing the suit. One G. H. Morley had insured his car MSP 2228 with the Caledonian Insurance Co. the plaintiff, against comprehensive risks for Rs. 4000. On 6-2-1955, on the Madras Bangalore road, a lorry MDJ 1099, coming from opposite direction and after overtaking a bus, collided with the car causing serious damage to it. The insurer settled the claim of the assured at Rs. 3030, treating the case as a total loss and itself taking over the damaged car. The insurer later sold it on 16-4-1955, for Rs. 1500 and brought the suit to recover the ...
K.N. Nannier and ors. Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad127
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, scaling down a mortgage decree by applying the provisions of S. 13-A of the Madras agriculturists Relief act, 1938 (to be referred hereafter as the Act). Substantially, two questions fall for determination in the appeal: the first of them has given rise to this reference. They are:1. Whether S. 13-A of the Act, which provides for a ceiling rate of interest, in regard to a debt payable by a certain category of non-agriculturist debtors, will apply to debts incurred by such persons prior to its Act; 2. Whether the provisions of S.19(2) of Act can be availed of by a non-agriculturist debtor coming within the scope of S. 13-A, in order to scale down a decree passed against him.It is not disputed that the respondent, who applied to the lower court for relief under the provisions of the Act, owns an interest in agricultural lands and she would come within the definition of an 'agriculturist' as defi...
Sha Manumal Misrimal Vs. Natha Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ312
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the possession of the appellant herein, who is a tenant in respect of premises No. 20, Kasi Chetty Street, George Town, Madras, on a rent of Rs. 550 per month. The appellant is occupying the entire premises of the aforesaid suit property except for three shops on the front side in the ground floor and two rooms and one bathroom on the northern side in the first floor. The respondent-landlord terminated the tenancy by giving a notice, dated 10th October, 1960, to the appellant-tenant, and called upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises by the end of October, 1960. The appellant, however, failed and neglected to comply with the demand. Thereupon, the landlord filed the suit aforesaid in the City Civil Court, Madras (O.S. No. 2915 of 1960) for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the appellant-tenant. The...
A. Lakshmanan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR777(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee left India for Fiji Islands in 1922. He remained there till 1948. During that period, he engaged himself as an employee for some time and later had an independent business. He acquired certain properties one of which was a house which he constructed in 1939. On his return to India in 1948, he brought with him the cash that was available. Subsequently, through his friends and others at Fiji the other assets left behind were sold and the sale proceeds were remitted to India Such remittance amount to Rs. 9,300 Rs. 24,074 and about Rs. 31,000 in the account years relevant to the assessment years 1949-50, 1951-52 and 1952-53. The Income-tax Officer started proceedings under section 34 in the view that these amounts brought into the taxable territories cam out of the profits from business carried on in the Fiji Islands. The contention of the assessee was that these amounts represented remittances out of capital. But this contention was repelled and assessments we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›