Chennai Court March 1973 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.
P.L. Kn. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: [1973]96ITR375(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the claim for the set off of the loss of Rs. 6,187, against the assessee's business income on the ground that it was a speculation loss was justified in law '2. One Kannappa Chettiar was carrying on business in yarn. On January 20, 1961, he entered into two contracts of sale--one of which was for 50 bales of 60's of yarn of Bhavani Mills and the other was for 50 bales of the same count of Pioneer Mills--with one N. K. Nagappa Chettiar. The delivery period was March-April, 1961. The market price of these counts of yarn was rising during the period of delivery and the difference between the contract price and the market price was Rs. 14,000. These contracts for sale were not covered by any item of purchase contract. Yarn was not delivered under these contracts, but a su...
P.L. Kn. Meenakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR375(Mad)
RAMASWSMI J. - The following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the disallowance of the claim for the set off of the loss of Rs. 6,187, against the assessees business income on the ground that it was a speculation loss was justified in law ?'One Kannappa Chettiar was carrying on business in yarn. On January 20, 1961, he entered into two contracts of sale-one of which was for 50 bales of 60s of yarn of Bhavani MIlls and the other was for 50 bales of the same count of Pioneer Mills-with one N. K. Nagappa Chettiar. The delivery period was March-April, 1961. The market price of these counts of yarn was rising during the period of delivery and the difference between the contract price and the market price was Rs. 14,000. These contracts for sale were not covered by any item of purchases contract. Yarn was not delivered under these contracts, but a sum of Rs....
S. Palaniandi Mudaliyar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR231(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of four partners, the father and three of his sons, and its business was the purchase and sale of yarn. The trading results of the firm for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1962-63 were as under :Assessment yearTurnoverNet profit as per booksRs.Rs.1958-5912,96,088 4,5181959-6024,75,600 63,8401960-6131,70,045 40,6501961-6233,66,189 51,3351962-6344,20,3201,00,3312. In respect of the assessment year 1962-63, a claim was made by the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,140 paid as salary and of Rs. 31,355 paid as remuneration. The sum of Rs. 31,335 is made up of as under:Rs.(1)The remuneration paid to P. Shanmughasundaram18,813(2)The remuneration paid to M. P. Murugesa Mudaliar12,5423. It was contended by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that the above two persons were entitled to remuneration at the rate of 0-3-0 and 0-2-0 in the rupee respectively out of the net profits of the firm in addition to the salary drawn b...
O.M. Jalali Vs. AnusuddIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad340
1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit is one for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage deeds, Ex. B-1 dated 29-3-1859 and Ex. B-2 dated 30-3-1889 for Rs.100 and Rs. 150 respectively executed by one Ansuddin, the grand-father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant in favour of one Mohammed Noohu. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit property measuring one acre and three cents belonged to their grandfather, Ansuddin, that the said Ansuddin had created the said two mortgages over that property, that the period prescribed for redemption under both the documents was one year, that there has been a partition in the family of the mortgagee, Mohhammad Noohu whereunder the suit mortgages had been allotted to one Ahmed Ali Bathumal, that her father and guardian had assigned the usufructuary mortgages to the first defendant under a registered deed of assignment dated 5-6-1911 and that since then, the first defendant as an assigned of the mortgages has been in possession and enj...
Shanmugham Vs. Indrani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ506
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed, a suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same from defendants 1 and 2. His case was that he had purchased the suit property from one Govindammal under the sale deed Exhibit A-1 dated 4th September, 1965, who had in turn got the property from her paramour, Munuswami Naidu, under a will dated 20th December, 1935, and that his vendor Goviadammal had been in possession and enjoyment of the property on the basis of the said will. It is also the plaintiff's case that taking advantage of the sale deed executed by Govindammal's elder son Ethiraj in their favour under Exhibit B-6 dated 19th August, 1961, the defendants have entered into possession of the 'property and have put up structures thereon and that therefore he was constrained to file the suit for recovery of possession.2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that their vendor Ethiraj got the suit property from hi...
Sydney Victor and anr. Vs. Janab S. Kader Sheriff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad344
ORDER1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of two claim petitions in respect of one and the same motor accident. On 7-2-1967, at about 5-30 p.m. there was a collision between the bus bearing registration No. MDJ 3705 and the lorry bearing registration No. MSW 234 near milestone 43 in Madras-Bangalore Road. In that accident, Mrs. Sydney Victor, a school teacher at Madras, and Miss Chandra, a girl aged about 16 years, who were two of the passengers, traveling in the bus, were injured. On behalf of Mrs. Sydney Victor, M. O. P. 54 of 1967 was filed and on behalf of Miss Chandra M. O. P. 53 of 1967 was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chingelput. In the two petitions, the owner of the bus was impleaded as the first respondent, the owner of the lorry was impleaded as the second respondent and the Insurance Company which is common to both the vehicles, was pleaded as the third respondent. The Tribunal held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent d...
Shanmugha Porayar (Decd.) and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad90
1. This writ appeal has been filed in order to challenge the notification of the Government of Madras under Section 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 in respect of a certain charity conducted by the appellant. The notification extended the provisions of the Act to the particular charity. The appellant filed a suit challenging the notification on the ground inter alia that there was no dedication to the public and that it was only a private trust. He failed in the trial Court, in the first appellate Court and in the second appeal. Thereafter he filed the Writ Petition No. 817 of 1962 challenging the notification on the ground that the Government had no authority to invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of this Charity because the beneficiaries under the charity were not exclusively Hindus, e.g., feeding and distribution of water could apply even in respect of non-Hindus. His contention was that the provisions of the Act could be invoked only if th...
Kolandaswami Gounder and ors. Vs. K.M. Chandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad430; (1973)2MLJ359
ORDER1. The plaintiffs have filed this revision against the order passed by the District Munsif, Erode, refusing to restore I. A. 2123 of 1971 in O. S. No. 109 of 1969 which was dismissed on 7-1-1972. O. S. No. 109 of 1969 was dismissed after the advocate for the plaintiffs reporting no instructions. Within the time prescribed, the plaintiffs filed I. A. 2123 of 1971 for the purpose of restoring the said suit. On 17-12-1971, the ex parte order of dismissal was set aside on condition of the plaintiff's paying Rs. 25 as costs on or before 7-1-1972. The advocate for the plaintiffs has filed an affidavit in the above civil revision petition to the effect that he has noted the date as 17-1-1972, instead of 7-1-1972, with the result that the same was called on 7-1-1972 and I. A. 2123 of 1971 was dismissed.2. In view of the fact that the court has dismissed I. A. 2123 of 1971, owing to the fact that the advocate has noted the date wrongly. I. A. 367 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiff-petition...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Guruswami Gounder and K.S. Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR90(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court at the instance-of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the costof the materials supplied by the Government was not liable to be includedin the total receipts of the assessee for calculating its profits for theassessment year 1961-62 ?'2. Having regard to the very frame of the question it appears to us that the question involved is one of fact. There does not appear to be any question of principle involved, much less any question of law. Even otherwise, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the decision of the Tribunal appears to be quite justified on merits.3. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in construction of buildings for several departments of the Government on contract basis. For the assessment year 1961-62, it returned an income of Rs. 23,806 from its business. In computing the income, the assessee did not include the cost of the materials supplied t...
Paul Ponnusami Nadar and anr. Vs. Jayaprakash and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad92
1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs' 8/10 the share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs' case is as follows: Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of defendants 1 and 2. The first plaintiff was born on 27-12-1946, the second plaintiff on 2-1-1954 and the third plaintiff on 12-3-1961. Originally the suit properties belonged to the joint family of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. The case of the plaintiffs is that the annual income from the family properties including the suit properties was between Rs. 15000 and Rs. 20000, that there was no need for the father, viz., the first defendant to alienate any of the family properties, that the first defendant took to immoral ways and squandered away the properties and that in order to protect the interest of the first plaintiff, who was then a minor and other children to be born, the plaintiffs' maternal uncle on behalf of the minor first plaintiff demanded par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »