Chennai Court August 1968 Judgments
Miss Ruby Jacobs Vs. A. Anthoniswami Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ166
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This revision proceeding involves an issue of some interest, but, while I think that it is desirable to lay stress upon one aspect of interpretation of statute law, the case itself admits of a disposal purely on findings of fact. The revision petitioner is the landlady, who sought eviction of the tenant under Section 3 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 on two grounds, viz., (1) default in payment of arrears of rent and (2) an unauthorised sub-lease of a part of the : holding. The first ground failed, and it is not now being pressed before me.2. As regards the second ground, the finding of the Court below is that the alleged sub-lease was not satisfactorily established. But the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, when the point was put to him, did concede that an unauthorised sub-lease per se is not a ground for eviction under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act whatever-might be the case with regard to the other parallel or analogo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Imam Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ291
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This reference turns on the character of the income derived by the assessee in respect of the assessment years, 1958-59 and 1959-60. If it is agricultural income, it would be exempt from the charge under Section 4 (3) (viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Revenue as well as the Tribunal have all concurred in the view that the assessee will not be entitled to the exemption. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, this reference arises under a Section 66 (1) and the question is:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the two suras of Rs. 8, 962 and Rs. 8,833 are agricultural income, exempt under Section 4 (3) (viii) 2. The assessee at the relevant time was a dealer in coconuts. He also took leases, the transactions have been so described, of coconut thopes from different parties. Some of the transactions were registered and the others were not, but supported by acknowledgments by the lessors. There was a third category of tra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. S. Imam Saheb.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR742(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference turns on the character of the income derived by the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. If it is agricultural income, it would be exempt from the charge under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The revenue as well as the Tribunal have all concurred in the view that the assessee will be entitled to the exemption. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, therefore, this reference arises under section 66(1) and the question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the two sums of Rs. 8,962 and Rs. 8,835 are agricultural income, exempt under section 4(3)(viii) ?'The assessee at the relevant time was a dealer in coconuts. He also took leases, the transactions have been so described, of coconut thopes from different parties. Some of the transactions were registered and the others were not, but supported by acknowledgments by the lessors. There was a third category of transaction, eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. N.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad111
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference arises under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. The assessee and his minor son, Karuppah Chettiar constituted a Hindu undivided family. The family owned shares in house properties and business assets and outstandings due in this country and also shares in partnership business in Burma and Penang, the total of which was valued at Rs. 9,08,000 as on 2-9-1958. On that date, there was a partition, the terms of which are found in the partition deed. The assessee retained Rs. 70,000 in cash with him and the balance of the family assets was allotted to the share of the minor son. The responsibility for bringing up the assessee's four daughters and performing their marriages in accordance with the custom of the community and the status of the family was left with the minor son. Though the assesses retained for himself the sum of Rs. 70,000 he undertook to discharge a registered mortgage due from the family, a sum of Rs. 20,000. The partition appears to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.M. Ratnaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR204(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The question under reference is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by time. A common order was made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The last date for filing the appeals was December 14, 1962. On that date only one appeal was filed. The Tribunal apparently treated it as for 1959-60, but returned it on the view that it should be on the old form of appeal and also requested the Income-tax Officer concerned to file a separate appeal for the assessment year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer complied with the request on December 18, 1962, for the assessment year 1960-61. The appeal was received on December 21, 1962. As this appeal also was in the new form, the attention of the Income-tax Officer was once again drawn and he was asked to file it in the old form. Finally, on January 7, 1963, two appeals in the old form were sent up to the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbiah Iyer and anr. Vs. Pichiah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ132
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants filed O.S. No. 81 of 1960, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, to redeem the othi, Exhibit B-1 dated 1st March, 1919 executed by Pichu Iyer in favour of Sitarama Iyer for Rs. 7,500. Pichu Iyer died in January, 1929. The first plaintiff Subbiah Iyer is the last son of Pichu Iyer. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of Sangu Iyer and Krishna Iyer respectively, the second and third sons of the said Pichu Iyer. Pichandi Iyer, the eldest son of Pichu, Iyer, predeceased his father leaving two sons, Sivaramakruhna Iyer and the second plaintiff Sundaresa Iyer. Sivaramakrishna Iyer died leaving his widow Akilandammal, the sixth defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 claim that they are entitled to redeem the suit mortgage as the successors-in-interest of the mortgagor Pichu Iyer. Defendants 1 to 3 claim to be absolute owners of the hypotheca by virtue of the clause in the othi deed Exhibit-B-1 under which the mortgagee Sitarama Iyer became a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras Vs. M. K. K. R. Muthukaruppan Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR1(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference arises under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessee and his minor son, Karuppan Chettiar, constituted a Hindu undivided family. The family owned shares in house properties and business assets and outstanding due in this country and also shares in partnership business in Burma and Penang, the total of which was valued at Rs. 9,08,000 as on September 2, 1958. On that date, there was a partition, the terms of which are found in the partition deed. The assessee retained Rs. 70,000 in cash with him and the balance of the family assets was allotted to the share of the minor son. The responsibility for bringing up the assessees four daughters and performing their marriages in accordance with the custom of the community and the status of the family was left with the minor son. Though the assessee retained for himself the sum of Rs. 70,000, he undertook to discharge a registered mortgage due from the family, a sum of Rs. 20,000. The partition appear...
Tag this Judgment!Nonsuch Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas283(Mad); [1969]72ITR274(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60, and raises the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 97,188 representing the managing agency remuneration for the period April 1, 1956, to June 30, 1956, and July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957, was deductible in the computation of the income of the previous year ending on 30th June, 1958, relevant for the assessment year, 1959-60 '2. On that point, the revenue as well as the Tribunal have held against the assessee. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in 1924. Messrs. Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd. were its managing agents from the commencement, but there was no written agreement as to the terms of the managing agency. Prior to April 1, 1956, the remuneration to the managing agents was fixed at certain rates. For the period April 1, 1956, to June 30, 1956, the assessee credited a sum of Rs. 9,320 to the managing agents with the recital ' by remu...
Tag this Judgment!The Cement Distributors (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC86(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office in New Delhi, is a registered dealer both under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the year 1961-62, the petitioner had branches at Calcutta and at Dalmiapuram, and in that assessment year its registered office was in Madras. Even in Calcutta the company was registered as a dealer in that State both under the local Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the year 1961-62 and for the following years, assessments were completed in so far as the company's dealings as a dealer were concerned. By a notice dated 21st January, 1967, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lalgudi, the first respondent, issued a notice purporting to be under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, claiming that for the assessment year 1961-62 there has been an escapement of assessment in so far as sales in the course of inter-State trade and com...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ak. P. Kannammal Achi and ors. Vs. A.N. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ252
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. The substantial question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is about the genuineness and validity of the testamentary document Exhibit A-20 dated nth October, 1960, put forward as the last will and testament of one Kuppan Chettiar who died on 14th October, 1960.2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit as executors appointed under the said will for rendition of accounts by the defendants of his agency of the deceased Kuppan Chettiar's firm in Ipoh. The 1st plaintiff is the wife and the 2nd a daughter of Kuppan Chettiar and the third plaintiff is a stranger to the family. The defendant is the brother of the deceased. He questioned the capacity of the plaintiffs to institute the suit, challenging the genuineness of the will. He set up another will executed by the deceased on 13th March, 1959 at Ipoh, a copy of which is Exhibit B 5. The learned District Munsif of Devakottai accepted the genuineness and validity of Exhibit A-20 and decreed the suit for ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »