Chennai Court February 1968 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR345(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment years 1949-50 to 1953-54. A portion of the remuneration paid to the managing director and a director having been disallowed for the years, the assessee eventually came up to this court on a reference at his instance in which certain directions were given, with the result the Tribunal went into the question over again and held that the assessee was entitled to allowance of the entire remuneration paid to the directors in each of the years. The propriety of this view is the subject-matter of the first question under reference which is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals order allowing the remuneration of the managing director and director in full for the assessment years 1949-50 to 1953-54 as a proper claim under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act is based on any material ?'There is also another question which raises the admissibili...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathia Pillai Vs. Swaminatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad440; (1969)IILLJ159aMad
Veeraswami, J. 1. The respondent who holds a decree against the petitioner sought to attach the bonus amount due to him. He is a worker in the employ of the Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., Vikramasingapuram. The attachment was objected to on the ground that bonus was part of the wages and was not liable to attachment under Section 60, Civil P. C. The Court below rejected the objection in the ground that the Bonus Ordinance, 1965, had no retrospective effect. It came into force on 29th May 1965, while the attachment had been made on 9th April 1965, 2. It seems to me that the Court below Is not correct. The Ordinance has been replaced by the Payment of Bonus Act, 3965 which received the assent of the President on 25th September 1965, and was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on 25th September 1965. The Act applies to every establishment in which twenty or more persons are employed on any day during an accounting year. The Company in which the petitioner worked was such an establi...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sivagnanam and anr. Vs. Everest Boarding and Lodging by Its Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ101
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions by the tenants of the ground floor arise out of petitions for fixation of fair rent. Two matters are argued : (1) regarding the enhanced market value fixed by the Court below for the site on which the building stands, and (2) regarding the distribution of the entire market value of site over the ground floor ignoring the first, second and third floors. The finding on the first question is factual and the learned Counsel for the petitioners himself realising this position did not and could not press it. But his contention on the second point is of substance. He says, quite justifiably, that the cost of the land on which the whole building is situate should not be solely assigned to the ground floor in arriving at the fair market value for that floor.2. Section 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 provides for fixation of fair rent and the procedure to be followed for the purpose. Section 4 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act is in point to...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Devasahayam Vs. Government of Madras by Its Chief Secy. (P.S.) Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad118; (1969)ILLJ93Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by a retired Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Madras to continue the service of the petitioner in the Commercial Department until he reaches 58 years of age.2. The Petitioner joined the service of the Government of Madras in the Revenue Department on 16-2-1931. In 1948, he opted to the Commercial Taxes Department where he served for about 18 years, On attaining the age of 55, he was retired from service on 25-4-1966. The order retiring the petitioner is challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory, in that, while the servants of the Central Government are retired only at the age of 58, the State Government Servants are forced to retire on attaining 55 years, and that even regarding the State Government Service, while in the case of certain departments, the age of retirement is 53, the members of the service belonging to the petitioner's department are obliged to ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Devasahayam Vs. the Government of Madras by Its Chief Secretary ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ140
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The Writ Petition is filed by a retired Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Madras to continue the service of the petitioner in the Commercial Taxes Department until he reaches 56 years of age.2. The Petitioner joined the service of the Government of Madras in the Revenue Department on 16th February, 1931. In 1948, he opted to the Commercial Taxes Department where he served for about 18 years. On attaining the age of 55, he was retired from service on 25th April, 1966. The order retiring the petitioner is challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory, in that, while the servants of the Central Government are retired only at the age of 58, the State Government servants are forced to retire on attaining 55 years, and that even regarding the State Government Service, while in the case of certain departments, the age of retirement is 58, the members of the service belonging to the petitioner's...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvannamalai Animal Vs. Sadasiva Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ569
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The appellant is the second wife of one Sadasiva Subbaraya Mudaliar, the fifth respondent herein, whose sons through the third wife are respondents 1 to 4 herein. The appellant herself has a son through the fifth respondent. She filed O.S. No. 27 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chittoor, as next friend and guardian of her minor son, for partition of his share and maintenance for herself. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant's son became a major and he settled his claim with the fifth respondent and obtained his share from the family properties, and the appellant herself withdrew her claim for maintenance with liberty to file a separate suit for that purpose. The appellant thereafter filed O.S. No. 13 of 1958 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruttani, and on 31st August, 1959, she obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15 per month and a sum of Rs. 10 per year towards clothing and the amount decreed in her ...
Tag this Judgment!Emcete and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circle I, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR265(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - There appears to be no substance in this petition which is to forbid the respondent from enforcing a demand for payment of penal super-tax levied on the petitioner. It is a private limited liability company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1962-63. The respondent by a notice dated April 26, 1963, proposed to pass an order under section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years except the last one, and under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for 1962-63 and levied penal super-tax on the entire undistributed income for the years on the ground that the petitioner was an investment company. The petitioner says that eventually super-tax was levied, which, in the aggregate, amounted to Rs. 74,535. Pending appeals, which the petitioner preferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, it applied on December 3, 1963, to the respondent to treat it as no...
Tag this Judgment!South India Flour Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR863(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is to quash an order of the first respondent, the Central Board of Revenue, dated April 26, 1962. The petitioner is a private limited company and for the assessment year 1959-60, it was charged to a penal interest of Rs. 9,176.09 under section 18A(6) and (7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. That order was dated September 1, 1960. On August 30, 1961, an application was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer relating to the penal interest but it was dismissed by him on November 30, 1961, on a technical ground. He posed for his decision two points : (1) in regard to the validity of the revision petition and (2) whether the levy of penal interest was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. On his view on the first point, he did not decide the second. He thought that a revision under provision (c) to section 33A(2) of the Act would not lie to him. In taking that v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›