Chennai Court March 1965 Judgments
Sundaram Motors Private Limited and ors. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC644(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. In The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar [1954] 5 S.T.C. 88, a Bench of this Court held that under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, the amount collected by a registered dealer from the purchaser by way of sales tax and paid over to the Government should not be included in the turnover of the registered dealer as part of the sale price of the goods sold, and that tax is not liable to be taxed again. This decision was rendered on the 7th of January, 1954. The Madras Legislature thereafter enacted Madras Act XVII of 1954 (hereinafter called the Validating Act) as an Act to 'define the turnover and to validate certain assessments and collections made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act'. Broadly stated, this Act provided that in the case of sales effected by a dealer before the 1st of April, 1954, the amounts collected by him by way of sales tax shall be deemed to have formed part of his turnover. It also declared that all assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Commissioner for Hindu Religio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ337
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The defendants are the appellants from a decree setting aside the order of the first defendant, who is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, dated 10th May, 1960 by which he confirmed the order of the second defendant, the Deputy Commissioner in the same department holding that the trusteeship of the Kumaran Koil in Manjakollai village is not hereditary. The respondent was elected as a trustee by the Senguntha Mudaliar of Manjakollai village at a meeting held on 27th June, 1957. According to him, the temple was founded two hundred years ago by the members of his community and since then the management of the temple and its affairs has continuously been in the Senguntha Mudaliar community of Manjakollai, and that no person other than one elected as trustee by the community had at any time any right of control and management of the temple and its properties. In 1926, the temple was declared as an excepted temple under the provisions of M...
Tag this Judgment!A. Susiah Vs. S. Muniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad175; 1966CriLJ553; (1965)2MLJ377
(1) This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for an offence punishable under S. 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging that the respondent had infringed his copyright in what he claimed as a literary work called 'Topics in World History' of which he along with one Mr. S. Rajendran were joint authors. This work was first published by the appellant and Mr. Rajendran in 1957; but two other editions of the same work are said to have been published by the respondent, one printed at Vasu Press, Triplicane, and the other, at the Midland Printers, Vepery, Madras. The appellant contended that since the respondent infringed the copyright he committed an offence under S. 63 and that the infringing copies are liable to be seized under S. 64 of the Act.(2) The Seventh Presidency Magistrate who tried the case found that 'The topics in World History' is an original literary work and that the respondent had reprinted the book at Vasu Press of P.W. 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Associated Drug Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR306(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - It is on the application of the department under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act that the following questio :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 23A(1) can be applied to the assessee-company for 1954-5 ?'stands referred to us.The assessee is a private limited company. The total income of the assessee for the purpose of computation of the tax payable was Rs. 82,552. The company declared dividends of only Rs. 9,520. The Income-tax Officer computed the tax payable on the above-said income, and arrived at the balance of income available as at Rs. 46,694. He observed that the company should have declared dividends of at least this amount, and since it had failed to declare dividends equal to 100 per cent. of the assessable income, reduced by the tax thereon, an order under section 23A could be made, and he accordingly treated 'the undistributed assessable income', that is Rs. 46,...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Balaji Chettiar Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad148
(1) This appeal has been preferred under S. 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the decisions of the Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, dismissing two applications filed by the appellant, Applications Nos. 154321 and 149486, declining to register the trade marks.(2) The applications for registration were filed as early as June 1951 and June 1952 under the old Trade Marks Act of 1940 but as they had a chequered career they were ultimately disposed of by Madras Officer acting under the provisions of the Act of 1958 in 1960.(3) The appellant T.G. Balaji Chettiar who is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of soaps filed three applications : (I) A. No. 149485 dated 20-6-1951and (ii) A. No. 149485 dated 20-6-1951 and (iii) A. No 154321 dated 5-6-1952, for registration of a trade mark containing the word 'surian'. alleging that he has been carrying on the business in the manufacture and sale of soaps using this tra...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Annamalai Chettiar and Co. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC687(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. The only point raised in these petitions to quash the assessment orders is that, inasmuch as they were based on documents or accounts which had been seized illegally, they are invalid. The contention is that, since this Court has held Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 41 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act to be unconstitutional or not competent, search and seizure of the documents were illegal and that documents and account books so obtained cannot legally be used in support of the assessments.2. It seems to me that this contention has no force. It is one thing to say that search and seizure of documents and account books is illegal and it is quite another that, because of that, the documents so seized cannot legally be used as evidence. The second result does not follow from the first. I think that whatever means by which the documents have been obtained, their admissibility will depend only on their relevancy and not on the means by which they have been procu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. V. Guruviah Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Mad137; [1966]17STC272(Mad)
(1) This appeal is preferred against the decision of Veeraswami J. allowing a writ petition preferred by the respondent and issuing a writ of prohibition against the appellant prohibiting them from proceeding with their proposed revision of sales tax contemplated in their order B. 4846/61--1 dated 25-6-1961.(2) The respondent is an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins. For the assessment year 1954-55 he submitted a return for a gross turnover of Rs. 46,14,995-5-1. Out of this amount he claimed a sum of Rupees 45,48,305-2-10 as not liable to tax. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated 29-2-1956 assessed the respondent to a taxable amount of Rs. 66,691-2-3 basing his conclusions on the decision in Noor Mohamed and Co. v. State of Madras, : AIR1957Mad33 , that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were not liable to tax under Sec. 6-A of the Madras General Sales-tax Act 1939. Not satisfied with this order the respondent preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer claim...
Tag this Judgment!P. Hajee Abdul Wahab and Sons and anr. Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC284(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. T. C. No. 90 of 1963 arises out of the sales tax assessment for the year 1953-54. The petitioners are dealers in hides and skins carrying on their dealings as agents of both resident and non-resident principals. A turnover of Rs. 7,54,421 covered by sales on behalf of non-resident principals and non-licensees and partly not covered by licence, was taxed at 3 pies in the rupee. In respect of a turnover of Rs. 18,94,000 and odd, covered by licence for part of the period, a licence fee alone was levied. This assessment was taken up in appeal. Ultimately, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners contended that as no licence was issued under Section 5 of the Act, the entire turnover was not assessable according to a decision of this Court in W.P. No. 13 of 1954. This decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court, and following upon that, there was a remand of the case to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, various contentions were advanced. It was urged th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Represented by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ329
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decision of Veeraswami, J., allowing a writ petition preferred by the respondent and issuing a writ of prohibition against the appellant prohibiting them from proceeding with their proposed revision of sales tax contemplated in their Order B. 4846/61-1, dated 23d June, 1961.2. The respondent is an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins. For the assessment year 1954-55 he submitted a return for a gross turnover of Rs. 46,14,995-5-1. Out of this amount he claimed a sum of Rs. 45,48,305-2-10 as not liable to tax. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer by his order, dated 29th February,' 1956, assessed the respondent to a taxable amount of Rs. 66,691-2-3, basing his conclusions on the decision in Noor Mohamed & Co. v. State of Madras : (1956)2MLJ374 that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins were not liable to tax under Section 6-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. Not satisfied with this order, the respondent preferred an appeal t...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR23(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us is :'Whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 42,718 or any portion thereof from its assessable income for the year 1955-56 ?'In the year ended December 31, 1953, relevant to the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee wrote off in its profit and loss account a sum of Rs. 42,716-12-0 as loss arising from embezzlement of cash. In explanation of this claim, the assessee stated that the embezzlement resulted from the manipulation in the cash and the share transfer stamp account, by the employees. It was also stated by the assessee that this embezzlement had been going on for several years but had been discovered only in that accounting year and that any action in law to recover the amounts would be futile. The Income-tax Officer held that since the embezzlement was discovered only 1954, it could not be allowed in the assessment for the year 1954-55, and there the matter ended. In the assessment for the assessment year ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »