Chennai Court March 1965 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.
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Veerayya Rajaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad531; (1965)2MLJ231
ORDER(1) In this revision proceeding instituted by the first defendant in the court below, I have had some difficulty in comprehending the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the reliefs prayed, for in the suit, after holding that many of the averments in the plaint and several reliefs, fall within the ambit of Section 92 C. P. Code, that this suit in respect of a public religious or charitable trust is bad for lack of sanction of the Advocate General, under that provision of law. As far as I can see, a considerable part of the pleadings in the plaint does relate to alleged acts of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the trustee (revision-petitioner) who is the managing trustee of the trust, and to such alleged breaches of trust as will disqualify her for the office, if established. In that state of pleadings, there is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that the trial...
S. T. S. Swaminathan Chettiar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR125(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - The question on which our opinion is to be expressed is 'whether the assessment of excess realisation of $ 8,200 on the sale of house property No. 186 Kotha Road, Taiping as revenue profit (receipt) is valid in law'. The matter relates to the assessment year 1958-59, the accounting period having ended on May 31, 1957. The assessee was the karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his two sons Palaniappa and Chidambaram. The family was doing business in money-lending and dealing also in property under the vilasam 'S. T. S.' at Taiping in Malaya. On June 1, 1951, there was a partition of the family assets at which the assessee was allotted some house properties, one inam, deposits with Chettiar firms, bank and cash balances in the Taiping business. On June 8, 1951, the assessee opened his own books of account, with the assets and liabilities which had formed the business assets of the erstwhile family. It appears that from 1951, the assessee no longer acqui...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ganapathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad126; 1966CriLJ418
(1) These Criminal appeals have been posted together in a batch as they raise common questions of fact and law, arising under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 (Central). The respondents in all these cases were prosecuted for an offence under S. 2(i)(a) and (1) read with S. 7(1) and 16(i) and Appendix B to the rules, Rule A-04 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they were found in possession of adulterated compounded asafoetida for sale. The main facts of the case are not in controversy, and the only point that arises for determination is the basis for determining whether there is an infringement of the rules and whether there is adulteration of compounded asafoetida within the meaning of the Act. As regards asafoetida and compounded asafoetida, rule A-04 of appendix B provides what is called the minimum alcoholic extract of the contents of the asafoetida. In the case of asafoetida, the alcoholic extract s...
B.S. Nanda Rao and ors. Vs. V.M. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1965
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ153
M. Natesan, J.1. The legal representatives of the defendant in a suit in ejectment, who have failed in both the Courts below, are the appellants before me; and the question for consideration in the second appeal is within a narrow compass, namely, whether the property which had been demised by the plaintiff to the defendant is a building as defend in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVII of 1960) the defendant claiming the protection of statutory tenancy.2. The property in question is known as Murali Talkies, a cinema theatre, in Arcot in North Arcot District. It was the subject of a demise by the plaintiff to the defendant under a registered lease deed evidenced by Exhibit A-2, dated 1st April, 1955. The lease was for a period of five years and provided for the defendant handing over possession of the demised property on the expiry of the lease on 31st March, 1960. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed for possession on the expiry of the period of...
M.R. Chinnaswami Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad344; [1973]89ITR200(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The assessee had been assessed as an individual for the assessment year 1950-51. In the course of the assessment proceedings of the assessee for that year, it was discovered that two sums of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 10,000 had been debited in the names of Ratnaswami and Ramaswami, the two sons of the assessee. The assessee stated that he had advanced these moneys to the two sons to enable them to carry on independent businesses in groundnut decortication. Each of these two sons was said to have been carrying on such business in partnership with another person with a right to a 7/8ths share in the profits arising therefrom. The relevant accounts of the two sons purported to disclose losses, but the Income-tax Officer computed the profits of Ratnaswami and Ramaswami at Rs. 4,400 and Rs. 9,800 respectively. It was further held by the Income-tax Officer that the businesses were not the independent businesses of the two sons but were ventures which belonged to and were conducted...
United India Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad535; [1966]59ITR54(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. For the assessment year 1956-57 the return of income of the assessee insurance company was Rs. 4,93,065. It is not in dispute that this was computed in accordance with Rule 2(b) of the rules for the computation of the profits and gains of insurance business. The average actuarial valuation for the two years period ended on 31-12-1954 disclosed the average surplus of Rs. 51, 38,221. In order to arrive at the taxable profits, certain sums have to be deducted under Rule 3. One of those is 80 per cent of the amounts paid to or reserved for or expended on behalf of the policy holders. The company declared Rs. 42,58,246 as bonus to the policy holders and this sum was credited to the accounts of the various policy holders. It would follow form Rule 3(a) that 80 per cent of this amount has to be deducted in arriving at the surplus for the purpose of rule 2. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 34,06,597 was claimed as deduction. It appears that subsequently it was discovered that a mista...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. South Madras Electric Supply Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR491(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The question referred to us, as to whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 10% turns on the interpretation of rule 8 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. On that matter, the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal have taken one view differing from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who had held that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation only at 5%. The assessee is an electric supply corporation in Tiruchirapalli District and is a supply undertaking. For the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54, 1955-56 and 1956-57, the assessee claimed 10% depreciation on house-service connections and post which was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. This the Income-tax Officer did on the view that it fall under rule 8-III(3)E, which relates to electric supply undertaking - (i) electric plant, machinery, boilders. This is the view which found acceptance with the Tribunal. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner felt that depreciation would be allowable only at 5% u...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. M. R. Gopal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR598(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byVEERASWAMI J. - This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60 and the question is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 15C in regard to the profit earned by him in Pallavaram quarry. The actual process consisted of this, namely, rocks and boulders were cut into chips of various sizes with the use of machinery. The departmental authorities were of the view that this is not a case of an industrial undertaking because there was no manufacturing process involved. The Tribunal disagreed with the view and held that the process employed by the assessee in converting the boulders into small stones with the aid of machinery is a manufacturing process and the undertaking of the assessee is an industrial undertaking.Section 15C exempts from tax the newly established industrial undertakings, and the section would apply only if the profits or gains charged to tax are derived from any industrial undertaking, and further if the ...
Siddhi Vinayagar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR771(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - For assessment year 1956-57, the previous year for which ended on September 14, 1955, the assessee-firm applied for registration on May 26, 1956, under section 26A of the Income-tax Act 1922. The Income-tax Officer granted registration to the firm and completed the assessment on that basis. The Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of his power under section 33B, however, held that the application for registration which was received by the Income-tax Officer on June 23, 1956, was belated and that, in any case, the real partners were not the persons shown in the deed of partnership, and that one of the partners, S. K. K. Manickam Chettiar, was not a partner in his individual capacity but was only a representative of another firm in which he was a partner, namely, Messrs. S. K. Kasturirangan Chettiar and Brothers. He came to this conclusion in the light of two facts, (1) S. K. Kasturirangan Chettiar and Brothers had provided the share capital appearing in the name of S....
A.S. Shaik Mohamed Maracaiyar Vs. C. Mohideen Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad192; 1966CriLJ666; (1965)2MLJ227
ORDER(1) This revision petition is filed by the landlord against the order directing a complaint to be filed under Ss. 195 and 476 Crl.P.C. against the landlord-petitioner for offences under Ss. 191, 192, 193 and 465 I.P.C. (2) The Petitioner is the landlord of premises No. 206, Angappa Naick St., and the respondent is his tenant. The respondent filed H.R.C. 4968 of 1958 before the Chief Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in respect of the said premises. The petitioner contested this application and in the course of the proceedings he filed Ex. R-4 purporting to be an office copy of the notice dated 28-2-1959 calling upon the respondent to furnish a list of his sub-tenants and the rents collected from them and Ex. R-5 by purporting to be a reply sent to the landlord by the tenant and said to have been signed by the dismissed clerk of the tenant stating that on an average about Rs. 400 was being collected from the sub-tenants. It was found after an elaborate enquiry that these tw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »