Chennai Court September 1964 Judgments
P. Balakrishna Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC825(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The assessee is described in the order of assessment as proprietor, Chitra Painters and he undertakes to do paintings used for the purpose of advertisement by customers. The nature of his work appears to be this. The customers give him orders for painting. Some of them supply boards on which the paintings have to be painted. In other cases, the assessee himself buys the boards and paints on them, and sells the paintings. The department has excluded from the assessable turnover those cases where he had painted on boards supplied by customers and delivered the paintings, and assessed him on a turnover of Rs. 12,000 and odd which covers cases where he had painted on boards purchased by him for the customers. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed this order and the assessee has filed this present revision against the assessment.2. As mentioned already, the disputed turnover consists of cases where the assessee has himself purchase...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopal Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: [1966]60ITR467(Mad)
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - The assessee owns a sizable extent of agricultural lands in the Thanjavur District. Besides what stands in his name, there are agricultural lands standing in the names of his wife and those of his sons. The assessee head also a leasehold interest in about 950 acres of land, which belonged to the Dharmapuram and Tiruvaduthurai mutts. It is not disputed that the matathipathis concerned were in possession of such lands either under a trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes.For the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee filed an application under section 65 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1958, for permission to compound the agricultural income payable by him on his total agricultural income. His application was granted by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, the assessee realised that the compounding of all the categories of lands into a single unit would attract a higher tax by reason of the ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Naganatha Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad422; [1965]57ITR326(Mad); (1965)1MLJ242
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) This consolidated reference arises out of proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli, under S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, against one Naganatha Aiyar, with a view to bring to tax amounts in his hands, which had escaped assessment in the two assessment years 1945-46 and 1947-48, Naganatha, the assessee was the junior member of a Hindu undivided family, the Karta thereof being his father, Narayanaswami Aiyar. In February 1941, Naganatha, in partnership with one Manickam, commenced a business under the name of Andhra Trading Co., Manickam retired from the partnership on 17-1-1945, and thereafter Naganatha continued to be its sole proprietor. Both he and the undivided family, of which he was a member, were assessees. So far as the income from the Andhra Trading Co., was concerned, the department at first accepted the position that Naganatha was exclusively entitled to the profits thereof. Accordingly, during the three assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate General of Madras Vs. S.V. Thonthi, Chakkampatti, Madurai Dt.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad415; 1965CriLJ371
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This is an application filed by the Advocate General for committing the respondent, S. V. Thondi, for contempt of court.The respondent was a party to an appeal pending before the District Court, Ramanathapuram. He wrote an inland letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras by registered post with acknowledgement due, making the allegation that the District Judge was corrupt. The letter also stated that the respondent apprehended that a just decision would not be rendered by the District Judge in the appeals pending before him. At the time when the letter was written, arguments in the appeals had been heard by the learned District Judge; but judgment had not been delivered. There can be little doubt that this letter amounted to gross contempt of court, inasmuch as it made a serious charge against the District Judge without any attempt at justification thereof. There can be little doubt also that the object of the respondent was to see t...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Gopalan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad289
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. Learned counsel for the assessee has invited our decision only on the first of the two question that have been referred to us. That question runs.'Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 15000 accrued to the assessee as gratuity in the accounting year ending on 31-3-1957 or in the accounting year ending 31-3-1958?'.(2) The assessee was the Branch Manager and Principal officer of an insurance company called Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co., Ltd. The company which was incorporated in Pakistan decided to close down its business in India early in the year 1957. On 20-3-1957, it wrote to the assessee, expressing its difficulties with regard to its business in India and intimating that it had no choice but to close down such business. The letter then stated:'Please, therefore, stop acceptance of business as and from 1-4-1957........ please give one month's notice to all our staff in India, of termination of their service...............
Tag this Judgment!M. K. K. R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR674(Mad)
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - The two references cited above concern the assessment of two members of a divided Hindu family, Karuppan Chettiar, since deceased (the father) and Muthukaruppan Chettiar, his son. The latter and his minor sons even now constitute a Hindu undivided family and he has been assessed as its karta. The first of the cases referred to above arises out of his assessment, while the second one concerns that of his father, Karuppan Chettiar. Prior to the partition, the family owned properties and businesses in India and Penang. It also had an interest in certain firms in Keddah, Kungayangone and Coloroon. The partition between the father and son took place on February 7, 1951. It was a complete partition. The fact of partition was intimated by the assessees to the income-tax authorities even during the proceedings relating to the assessment for the year 1949-50. Both the assessees, the father, as an individual, and the son, as the karta of his family, submitted voluntary...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division Vs. R.Y. Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC312(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The Tribunal held, on a consideration of teh facts, that the material sold by the assessee was iron scrap which fell under item 4 of the Second Schedule of the Madras General Sales2. Tax Act, 1959, assessable at 2 per cent. The contention of the department was that it fell under ' machinery', item 23 of the First Schedule. The term ' machinery' as defined in item 23 includes parts of machinery, hardware, iron and steel and all articles made therefrom. But when an article has been found to be iron scrap, as was done by the Tribunal in this case, there is no scope at all for contending that it will be machinery or a part of it, or hardware or iron and steel falling within item 23. The assessee has been found to be a dealer in old scrap iron materials, and this is not susceptible of any doubt.3. The learned Government Pleader wants us to admit the revision case for deciding that iron scrap, as found by the Tribunal, is an item of machinery. We are unable to see any...
Tag this Judgment!A. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC808(Mad)
Ramamurti, J.1. The main point that arises for decision relates to the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 3rd July, 1961, in exercise of his powers of revision under Section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts of the case are :The petitioners, who are tanners and dealers in hides and skins, were assessed to sales tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated 12th February, 1954, on a turnover of Rs. 7,68,298-1-0 for the year (1952-53), and, on appeal by the assessee, this assessment was confirmed by the Commerical Tax Officer, North Arcot, by his order dated 4th March, 1955. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, by an order dated 30th November, 1957, revised the assessment refixing the taxable and licence turnover of the assessee at Rs. 1,01,597-2-9, purporting to follow certain decisions of the Madras High Court. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took the view that the turnover of Rs. 6,66,700-14...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.N. Thangaswami Chettiar, Madurai and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad103; [1965]57ITR546(Mad); (1964)1MLJ251
(1) These two references arise out of assessments to income-tax for the year 1959-60 of two partners of a firm, S. M. N. Mahadevan Chettiar, which carries on business at Madurai. During the year of account relative to the assessment year abovementioned, the two assessees respectively donated Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 24,000 for the renovation of Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple at Paramakudi in the Ramanathapuram Dt. The temple is a public one and has been declared to be such under the provisions of Madras Act II of 1927. It is, however, claimed that the trusteeship of the temple vests hereditarily in a particular family. That circumstance is of no importance to the present case.(2) The two assessees claimed rebate of tax under S. 15-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the amounts paid by them for the renovation of the temple. The Income-tax officer did not accept the claim, as in his view, a Hindu temple could not be regarded as a charitable institution; nor according to him could an...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Transport (Pvt.) Ltd., Periyakulam Vs. the State Transport Appel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad360
1. The appeal is instituted by Madras Rahim Transport (P) Ltd. from the judgment of Veeraswami J, in W.P. 607 of 1961, a proceeding dealt with by the learned Judge in conjunction with two other related proceedings; as far as W.P. 607 of 1961 is concerned, the issue in controversy was the grant of a stage carriage permit in favour of Messrs Southern and Rajamani Transport (P) Ltd, (Second respondent) for the route Dindigul to Gumbum, via Sembatty, Batlagundu, Perikulam, Theni etc. As the appeal has been argued and pressed before us, two grounds are involved. The first is, does the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, granting the permit to the second respondent, suffer from the constraining influence of G.O. Ms. 1298 (Home) dated 28-4-1956, or the later G.O. No. 2265 (Home) dated 9-8-1958, upon any aspect of the actual decision?If it does, the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is certainly vitiated, in the light of the recent judgment of the Supreme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »