Chennai Court April 1972 Judgments
V. Sannasi Konar Vs. the Commissioner, Pudukottai Municipality and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ264
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is rate-payer residing within the jurisdiction of the Pudukottai Municipality. As is customary for the Municipality, an auction was held to farm out the right to collect and levy the fees on the persons willing to carry on their trade in the weekly shandy held within the precincts of the Municipality on every Friday. One such auction was held on 28th February, 1972. The petitioner bid for Rs. 5,250 and the second respondent for Rs. 5,251. The second respondent's bid was the highest. It is common ground that both the petitioner and the second respondent complied with the pre-requisite as laid down in the conditions and terms of the auction in that ea -h of them paid a deposit amount of Rs. 10,000 as earnest money to participate in the said auction. According to condition No. 9 the highest bidder should pay within three months from the date of auction an advance representing the weekly shandy fees which invariably is the amount for which he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Aas Mohmed Rowther and anr. Vs. Jaina Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad290
1. The defendants are the appellants. They succeeded before the trial Court in resisting the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of her one-third share in the suit properties but they failed to sustain the decree of the trial court before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court has awarded a decree to the plaintiff for her one-third share in the suit properties.2. The plaintiff, who is the sister of the first defendant, claimed that she was entitled to partition and separate possession of a third share in the suit property from the first defendant. The second defendant is a mortgage of the suit properties from the first defendant. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff's right to one-third share was lost by adverse possession. The trial Court accepted the defense and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the plaintiff had lost her title to her one-third share by adverse possession, on the part of the first def...
Tag this Judgment!A.U. Mohamed Rowther and anr. Vs. Srimathi Jaina Bibi Alias Thayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ236
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendants are the appellant. They succeeded before trial Court in resisting the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties, but they failed to sustain the decree of the trial Court before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has-awarded a decree to the plaintiff for her 1/3rd share in the suit properties.2. The plaintiff who is the sister of the first defendant, claimed that she was entitled to partition and separate possession of a third share in the suit property from the first defendant. The second defendant is a mortgagee of the suit properties from the first defendant. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 or the ground that the plaintiff's right to l/3rd share was lost by adverse possession. The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. holding that the plaintiff had lost her title to her l/3rd share by adverse possession, on the part of the first defenda...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Govindarajulu Naidu and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR13(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee-family held 3,300 partly paid up shares in a private limited company known as ' Chandra Textiles Private Ltd. ' The share capital of the said company was 5,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each and its accounting year was the calendar year. As on December 31, 1956. 50 per cent. of the value of the stares had been paid up by way of application and allotment money. The trading results of the company for the years ending on December 31, 1956, and December 31, 1957, did not result in any profit or loss. But a loss of Rs. 1,90,202 and Rs. 4,370, respectively, was determined under the Income-tax Act for those two years. In the year ended on December 31, 1956, a sum of Rs. 1,50,242 was debited to the profit and loss account and credited to the 'development rebate reserve ' account. Similarly, for the year ended on December 31, 1957, a sum of Rs. 1,20,875 was debited to the profit and loss account and credited to the 'development rebate reserve' account. For the year...
Tag this Judgment!V.N.S. Sockalingam Chettiar (Decd.) by L.R. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR224(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following five questions have been referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act:' 1. Whether, on the facts' and circumstances of the case, the reassessment made on the assessee-family for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1953-54, under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are valid in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion and assessment to tax of the share income of Rs. 37,374, Rs. 52,203 and Rs. 28,369 from Kaloogala Estate in Ceylon in the hands of the assessee-family for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, respectively, are justified in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion and assessment of the interest income of Rs. 9,839, Rs. 7,345 and Rs. 4,721 in the hands of the assessee-family for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, is justified in law ? 4. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Balasubramaniam and ors. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR377(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As all the three tax cases are connected and arise out of a common order of the Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal, they are dealt with together. As the facts and the points involved in all the cases are the same it is sufficient to refer to the facts in the first case, T.C. No. 183 of 1966. The petitioner in this case returned a net income of Rs. 6,474.34 under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1962-63 in respect of lands leased out to a sugar factory. In response to a notice under Section 17(2) of the Act it was however urged on behalf of the assessee that even the said sum did not represent the income of that year. The assessing authority, however, rejected he assessee's contention and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 37,814calculating the rents at the rate of Rs. 175 per acre for 216.08 acres held by the assessee during the accounting year, and leased out to the sugar factory. The assessment order was challenged before the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vasantha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR17(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, at the instance of the revenue :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's share in the agricultural lands owned by the two firms was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 '2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are these. The assessee is the widow of one Ramanathan Chettiar who was a partner in two firms, (1) Valimalai Rubber Estate, and (2) Peramboocoly Coffee Estate. The assets of these firms mainly consisted of agricultural lands. Ramanathan Chettiar died on April 12, 1960, and his widow, the assessee, filed a wealth-tax return valuing the net wealth of the deceased as on the date of his death at Rs. 5,80,645. In computing the value of the net wealth the assessee did not take into account ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR406(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The cinema theatre building known as Chitra Talkies, Madras, was taken on lease by one K. Viswanathan on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500 under lease deeds dated May 25, 1956, and May 26, 1956.The lease was for a period of four years from June 1, 1957, with a right to renew the same for a further period of two terms of four years each, Viswanathan was also the holder of a licence for exhibiting cinema films. He assigned his right, title and interests under the lease deeds to Messrs. Ramakrishna and Company, a partnership firm, by a deed of assignment dated April 29, 1957. Under this document, Ramakrishna and Company had to pay a sum of Rs. one lakh by way of consideration to Viswanathan and also pay to the owners of the theatre a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500 which was payable by Viswanathan. This partnership firm consisting of five partners was registered with the Registrar of Firms on May 1, 1957, and a partnership deed also was executed on January 2, 1959, It is this firm...
Tag this Judgment!A. Asha and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR57(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The question that has been referred in this case is: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1961-62 '2. The assessee is a firm of partnership constituted under a deed of partnership dated January 15, 1960. The deed was executed between Arjandas & Co., a firm consisting of three partners whose names have been set out in the deed, and another partner by name T. Muralidhar. The partnership deed was signed by the three partners of Arjandas & Co. and the said Muralidar. Under the terms of the partnership deed, Arjandas & Co. consisting of the three partners was called the party of the first part, and Muralidhar was called the party of the second part. The party of the first part was entitled to a share of 75 paise and the party of the second part to a share of 25 paise in the partnership. In the books of the assessee-firm the 75 paise s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. S. Rukmani Ammal (Legal Heir to the Estat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR549(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The question that has been referred under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift in question was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act (hereinafter called'the Act')?' 2. The assessee was carrying on business in paper, hardware, chemicals, cycles, etc., as a sole proprietor. He took his three major sons as partners and admitted a minor son to the benefits of the partnership and a partnership deed was executed on March 4, 1957. The assessee and his sons including the minor son were each entitled to 1/5th share in the profits of the business and the assessee and his three major sons were liable to share the losses of the business in equal shares. In response to a notice issued by the Gift-tax Officer, the assessee filed a nil return for the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee contended that since the partnership deed was dated...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »