Chennai Court February 1969 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagadeeschandran and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR697(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. Whether the assessee' is entitled to development rabate in respect of light fittings and water pipe fittings is the question in this reference. It relates to the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee is a registered firm during that year and has been running a hotel called Ashok Hotel in the City of Madras. The rebate claimed was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the light fittings and water pipe fittings formed part of the building. In regard to fans he thought that development rebate for them was expressly disallowed in the Act itself. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner substantially accepted that view. The Tribunal, however, held in favour of the assessee on the view that these items could be classified as plant. In its view the mere fact that these items were fitted to a building would not alter their character. Hence this reference of the questipn : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to d...
G. Annamalai Chettiar and anr. Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR743(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One A. Ar. Annamalai Chettiar died on August 9, 1957, leaving a will dated April 24, 1957, in and by which he bequeathed his estate in favour of his grandsons, who are the accountable persons. They filed a return showing the principal value of the estate that passed on the deceased's death at Rs. 1,57,090. The Assistant Controller, however, fixed the principal value at Rs. 1,81,185. Two items, among others, were in dispute : (1) a sum of Rs. 77,227, outstandings due to the deceased in Burma in the course of his money-lending business and (2) includibility in the principal value of compensation in respect of a part of the lands notified in Burma and taken over. The revenue has taken the view that since the only restriction in respect of the outstandings was about repatriation of funds, there is no sufficient reason why they should be excluded in computing the principal value of the deceased's estate....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR761(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question in this reference turns on the character of an outgoing of Rs. 1,001 as to whether it is a capital or revenue expenditure. We are concerned with the assessment year 1962-63. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready-made garments under the name and style of ' Sri Murugan Dress Stores ', He had several branches and the one at Tanjore had to be vacated under rent control proceedings. And so, he obtained a lease of a new building and, in doing so, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,001 to the landlord as an extra payment over and above the stipulated rent, which was not refundable. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount as revenue expenditure which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer with whom the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred. But the Tribunal found that the expenditure was very much akin to thepayment of rent for the new premises and allowed the appeal of the assessee. So the reference arises, the question being :'Whe...
D. Paul David Vs. State of Madras Represented by Secretary, Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad432
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as Works Manager of the second respondent's factory near the city of Madras from 1-6-1962 on a monthly salary of Rs. 950 plus certain commission. He was originally appointed foe a fixed period of three years under a contract of service dated 16-6-1962. The said contract was renewed for a further period of three years with effect from 1-6-1965 under the contract dated 12-7-1965 and the petitioner's salary was increased to Rs. 1100 per month plus certain commission. By a letter dated 22-2-1963, the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 1-3-1968, by the second respondent, on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, to the third respondent herein. Before the third respondent, the second respondent raised an objection that Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. 1947, had no ap...
K. Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. Noor Muhammad Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad504
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He obtained a decree in O. S. 220 of 1957 against one Rajagopal Iyengar and in execution attached 32 items of properties belonging to him on 25-3-1958. Since the properties were not sold, the execution petition was dismissed on 22-12-1958 and the attachment was ordered to continue for three months. The defendant, an assignee decree-holder in S. C. 131 of 1957. brought 39 items of properties belonging to Rajagopala Iyengar to sale in E. P. 21 of 1958. attached them on 3-2-1958 and purchased on 28-1-1959. 20 out of those 39 items. He set off the purchase price against the decree amount and full satisfaction of his decree was entered and the attachment in respect of the remaining 19 items was raised and the sale was confirmed on 10-3-1959. The plaintiff then filed E. P. 217 of 1959 on 19-3-1959 and applied for attachment of the properties purchased by the defendant along with some other items. The defendant filed a claim petition and that...
Pl. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR28(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. There was a partnership at will under the name and style of AR. PL. Singapore, which carried on business at that place. The partners were the family of the deceased consisting of himself, the accountable person and a third party. On April 12, 1958, the deceased sued in the High Court of Singapore for dissolution of the partnership. The same day the court appointed the deceased as receiver and manager of the properties of the firm. The dissolution ordered by the court was made effective from May 14, 1958. The firm owned both movable and immovable properties, ofwhich the value of the immovable properties was estimated at $ 1,86,000. The death was on August 15, 1958. In his return the accountable person treated the immovable properties as outside the scope of the Estate Duty Aci, 1953. But this view was not accepted by the department, which opined that the family consisting of the deceased and the accountable person was but entitled to a half share in the assets of the er...
i.S. and C. Machado Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR38(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1953-1954. The assessee was a partnership in that year, the terms of it reducedto a writing dated September 22; 1944. It had two items of business, oneS.V.O.C. agency under the firm name Tihnevelly I. S. & C. Machado, Tinneveily, and, the other in country craft route agency. It appears that the firm was entrusted with a consignment of rice for transport from Trivandrum to Tuticorin. But the country craft carrying the rice struck against a submerged rock and sank. This led to a claim by the assessee and counter claim by the Government which eventually resulted in a decree against the assessee which had to pay a sum of Rs. 31,820 in discharge of it. This sum was paid during the assessment year. The assessee sought to set off this sum as expenditure but against the profits of the S. V. O. C. agency business, as the route agency business was stopped as early as 1947. The revenue as well as the Tribunal have concurrently taken t...
Tirumurthi Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ14
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing certain proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, dated nth June, 1958. These proceedings related to the proposal to open a new route as Udumalpet to Coimbatore via Poolankinar, Erishnampatti, Challappambalayam, Thondamathur, Somathur, Pollachi and Kinathukadavu and to fix the number of buses to be introduced on that route. The Regional Transport Authority approved the proposal and fixed the number of bus as one. The petitioner admits in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition that an appeal is available against the said order to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, but he had not filed the appeal because prior to this, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against Section 47 (3) orders and as such he was not aware of the limitation. The substance of this plea is one of ignorance of law as justifying his not filing an appeal and comin...
T.S. Doraiswamy Naidu Vs. Seth T.N. Ahuja and Co., by Its Partner V.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ11
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This petition arises out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in E.P. No. 95 of 1967 (in C.S. No. 2 of 1962 High Court). The petitioner was the fifth respondent in the execution petition. The decree sought to 'be executed was on the foot of a mortgage. The mortgagor had, during the pendency of the suit on the mortgage which resulted in the mortgage decree sought to be executed, granted a lease of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner for a period of three years. The petitioner wanted his lease to be mentioned in the sale proclamation and this request having been refused, has filed the present revision petition.2. The petitioner contended that he was not aware of the mortgage in favour of the decree-holder, that the lease in his favour was not collusive and that it was not hit by lis pendens and that as he had a subsisting interest in the property, it had to be disclosed in the sale proclamation. The other facts are not neces...
Dr. P. Vadamalayan Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad460; [1969]74ITR94(Mad)
1. The assesses is a Doctor and a leading Surgeon who is practising his profession at Madurai and also maintaining and running a Nursing Home. In the year of account he installed a Combination Sterilizer at a cost of Rs. 16,090/- and an equipment called the Major Surgical Luminaire at a cost of Rs. 8,065/-, These new items of plant were wholly utilised by the 'assessee for the activities indulged in by him. He claimed development rebate under Section 10(2)(vi)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the above plant. He was unsuccessful before the Revenue. The Tribunal on second appeal found that the assessee was running a Nursing Home as part of his profession and could not therefore, classify his income under the head 'income from business', held it was income from his profession and disallowed the claim for development rebate. On the assessee requiring the Tribunal to refer the question of law arising out of Its order, the following question has been referred to us to re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »