Chennai Court February 1965 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. N.H. Lee Manner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad107
Venkatdri, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the Commissioner of income-tax, madras, praying that this court may be pleased to direct the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to state a case to this Honorable court and refer the question of law, viz.'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the perquisite as fixed in previous assessments together with Rs. 600/- added represented the fair rental value of quarters occupied by the assesses and as such the valued of the perquisite as contemplated in Rule 24-A of the Income-tax Rules?The assesses was employed as Assistant Manager in the Nadupally Estate, Kerala State. During the account year ended 31-3-1959 and 31-3-1960, the assessee received from his employer salary and allowances amounting to Rs. 20902 and Rs. 27280 respectively. Besides, the assessee was provided with rent-fee furnished quarters, hire-free furniture's, free electricity and two servants whose wages were borne by the employer.(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Felix Fernandez Vs. Integral Coach Factory (by Deputy Chief Mechanical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ881Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. The two writ appeals and the writ petition are posted together as a common question of law is involved, in Writ Petition No. 159 of 1961, against which Writ Appeal No. 14 of 1964 is preferred, Veeraswami. J., held that in an enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, if after setting out the charge a delinquent is asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed' or otherwise punished for the indisciplinary conduct, the method of framing the charge is not in consonance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Judge, the fact that the proposed punishment is mentioned In the charge can only show that even before the charge was enquired into and a finding arrived at on the basis of the enquiry, the delinquent had been prejudged and therefore the order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. In Writ Petition No. 462 of 1961 against which Writ Appeal No. 5 of 1964 is preferred, Srinivasan, J., found himself unable to follow the...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ramkishan Srikishan Jhaver and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC708(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution concern the scope and validity of the powers of search and seizure of account books and other records and of confiscation of goods seized or imposition of penalties in lieu thereof under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. They involve the construction and interpretation of Section 11, the legislative competency of some of its provisions and their constitutional vires.2. At about 5 p.m. on 19th August, 1964, certain officers of the Commercial Taxes Department, Intelligence Wing, under the personal direction and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Madras, raided the premises of Zenith Lamps and Electricals, Ltd., Madhavaram, inspected, searched and seized therefrom in the presence, among others, of one of the managing directors Mr. B.D. Mimani, a small leather suit-case with a khaki cover and certain records found on the top of the suit-case. The Deputy Com...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ramkishan Srikishan Jhaver and Others Vs. Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1965
Reported in: [1965]57ITR664(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution concern the scope and validity of the powers of search and seizure of account books and other records and of confiscation of goods seized or imposition of penalties in lieu thereof under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. They involve the construction and interpretation of section 41, the legislative competency of some of its provisions and their constitutional vires.At about 5 P.M. on 19th August, 1964, certain offers of the Commercial Taxes Departmental Intelligence Wing, under the personal direction and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Madras, raided the premises of Zenith Lamps and Electrical Ltd. Madhavaram, inspected, searched and seized therefrom in the presence, among others, of one of the managing directors Mr. B. D. Mimani, a small leather suit-case with a khaki cover and certain records found on the top of the suit-case. The Deputy Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Merchants Bank Ltd., Tanjore Vs. M. Dharmasambarthani Ammal and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad26; [1967]37CompCas227(Mad); (1965)2MLJ443
(1) This appeal by the second plaintiff turns on the maintainability of the suit originally brought by the first plaintiff. The suit was for recovery from the several defendants of a sum of Rs. 60,000 with subsequent interest, the basis of the claim being that, as employees of the first plaintiff, defendants 2 to 8 and the husband of the first defendant were guilty of various acts of misfeasance and malfeasance in respect of the funds of the first plaintiff, and misappropriated the same to a tune of Rs. 1,16,000. The first plaintiff also prayed for a mortgage decree on the foot of a security which the second defendant had executed in his favour in relation to the same mishandling of the funds. The first defendant's husband was the secretary of the first plaintiff from 1926 till 18-3-1957, when he died, leaving his widow, the first defendant. Though the articles of association vested the management of the first bank in a Board of Directors, the Board would appear to have confided and e...
Tag this Judgment!Beverley Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR374(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This tax revision case relates to the assessment of agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1955-56. That is the first assessment year for which tax became leviable under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The assessee is Messrs. Beverley Estates Limited, which has coffee plantations. Under the charging section, tax at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act shall be charged of or each financial year commencing from the 1st of April, 1955, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. The previous year means the twelve months ending on the 31st day of March next preceding the year for which the assessment is to be made. It follows that in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1955-56, it is the agricultural income of the assessee during the period 1st of April, 1954, to 31st of March, 1955, that has to be ascertained, and the levy of tax is upon that agricultural income. In the case of coffee which is the agricult...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras and ors. Vs. R. Damodaran Chettiar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1965
Reported in: [1966]18STC451(Mad)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The controversy that is raised in this appeal filed by the State Government against the judgment of our learned brother, Veeraswami, J., relates to the scope and ambit of the notification dated 28th February, 1955. By and under that notifica tion, potatoes among other goods were exempted from the payment of sales tax. The respondent who is a dealer in potatoes submitted returns for the year 1958-59, disclosing a gross turnover of Rs. 7,36,333.20 and claiming a deduction on a turnover of Rs. 7,21,454.52 as representing inter-State sales of potatoes. The balance of Rs. 14,878.68, being the value of packing material, was shown as assessable turnover. The break-up of this figure of Rs. 14,878.68 was as follows: Rs. 11,239.87 as the price of gunnies sold prior to 1st October, 1958, and taxable at 2 per cent., and Rs. 3,638.81, being the cost of the packing material sold subsequent to 1st October, 1958, and taxable at 7 per cent. On checking the accounts, the assessi...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Melapalayam Vs. V.S.T. Sheik Mansoor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad20; (1965)2MLJ223
(1) The second appeal and the revision petitions have been post before us, as Kailasam J., before whom they came up in the first instance, considered that, in view of the Municipal Council, Tiruvarur v. Muhammad Abu Baker, ILR (1944) Mad 405 : (AIR 1944 Mad 85) they should be decided by a Division Bench. They relate to levy of licence fee on private markets within the limits of the Melapalayam Municipality, in Tirunelveli District. The licence fee levied was computed at 15 per cent of the gross income of the owner from the market in the preceding year. This was in accordance with S. 262-A of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Municipality instituted suits for recovery of the arrears of fees payable for the markets of the respondents in the second appeal and the petitioners in the revision petitions. Their defence was that as a fee it could not be justified on the quid pro quo basis. The suits were, however decreed. In one of them, the respondents concerned preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!Manicka Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Madras State Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad31
Veeraswami, J.(1) These two petitions have been posted before us as they involve a point or importance relating to the construction of two of the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The petitioners were defendants in two suits brought by the Madras State Electricity Board for recovery of arrears of charges for electricity supplied. In one of these petitions the charges related to the period November 1957 to March 1958. One of the defences which the Court below did not accept was that the Electricity Board has not been duly constituted under S. 5 so that it cannot have the benefit of S. 60, which means that the Board could not maintain the suits.(2) The question turns on the construction of sub-section (4) of S. 1 of the Act, which reads :'The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force in a State on such date, not later than two years from the coming into force of the sections, Schedules and Table mentioned in sub-section(3), as the State Government may, by notific...
Tag this Judgment!Union Leather Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC1031(Mad)
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Veeraswami, J., declining to issue a writ of prohibition as prayed for by the appellant herein. The appellant is a dealer in hides and skins. In the year 1960, the assessing authority called upon him to submit his account books for the purpose of assessing the income derived (sic) by him. After looking into the accounts, he found that the turnover consisting of sales of untanned skins and hides could not be assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as the dealer has not obtained any licence. This conclusion of his was based on a decision of this Court in M.A. Noor Mohamed & Co. v. The State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 792, which held that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were not liable to be taxed. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that, on an earlier occasion, this Court struck down Rule 16(5) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules as ultra vires in Syed Mohamed & Co. v. The State of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »