Chennai Court August 1966 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.
K. Simrathmull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR166(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The assessee was a money-lender. His assessment dated November 20, 1947, for the assessment year 1947-48 for which the accounting year ended on October 24, 1946, was reopened under section 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by an order dated February 28, 1957, and certain income was added to the original income as having escaped tax. A sum of Rs. 11,475 was added as referable to the income by way of interest in the course of his money-lending business. A further sum of Rs. 1,208 was also added as income from the money-lending business carried on in the name of the assessees wife. A sum of Rs. 20,000 was found to the credit of one Mangilal Inderchand of Phaloodi in the account books of the assessee and this was found to be undisclosed income, which was brought to tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, was of the view that the credit being dated December 15, 1945, it should be excluded from the assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1947-48. At the...
Sengalani Gramani Vs. Subbayya Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad344
ORDER(1) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, dismissing the application which the petitioner filed in the suit as defendant for impleading one Ranganatha Mehata as the second defendant in the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against this petitioner for declaration of his title to Schedule A and for recovery of possession thereof mentioned as Schedule B in the plaint. The basis of the application of the petitioner was that Ranganatha Mehata from whom the plaintiff had purchased the property had agreed to sell the schedule A property to the defendant and that the plaintiff had notice of that agreement. The application was filed by the defendant under Order 8-A, C.P.C. The learned District Munsif in dismissing the application pointed out that there was no question of indemnity or contribution sought to be recovered from Ranganatha Mehata and therefore Order 8-A did not apply.In this petition Sri R. Subramaniam, le...
The Madras Piece-goods Merchants Charitable Trust by Its Secretary V.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ533
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The Applicant Moolchand Gupta, against whom a decree was passed on compromise and execution has been taken out for vacant possession, prays by the present application to dismiss the said E.P. and recall the warrant for delivery of possession. 2. The Suit C.S. No. 163 of 1962, by the plaintiff-respondent was for vacant possession of door Nos. 184-186, China Bazaar Road, George Town and the compromise decree directed the applicant to quit the portion in his. occupation of the aforesaid premises on or before 31st January, 1964, subject to the condition that the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the portion in the occupation of Panachand and the Bullion Market Post Office immediately by executing the decree. For the purpose of the present application, we are not concerned with the rest of the terms of the compromise.3. After the aforesaid E.P. Panachand delivered possession of his portion to the plaintiff by attornment and as regards the portion...
Ve. Vs. Sivagami Achi V. Vr. Ve. Vr. Ramanathan Chettiar and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR36(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a petition to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dismissing an application of the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in a suit, to direct the Income-tax Officer, Third Circle, Karaikudi, to produce certain documents, the details of which were mentioned and which are alleged to have been filed during assessment proceedings relating to the first defendant for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1948-49. The petition in the first instance was posted before Natesan J. who thought that there was a conflict of opinion in regard to the effect of the repeal of section 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and referred the question to be decided by a Division Bench. That is how the petition comes before us.The suit is for directing the first defendant to produce his accounts and render a true and faithful account of the moneys gifted to the plaintiff by her father and kept by himself as trustee for her in or about Karthigai - Margali of Akshaya year for improvin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›