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.
T.A.S. Rathnam Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of the Corporation of Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad465
1. This matter comes before us for revision of an order of the Court of Small Causes. We are here concerned with premises No. 30/31 Kumbalamman Koil St. Madras and property tax for the second half year of 1968-69. The premises consists of two floors of which the first floor is in the occupation of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer's Office on a rental of Rs. 300 per month and the ground floor, which is in two parts has been rented out to the E. S. I. Corporation on a monthly rental of Rs. 125 and to the Madras Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society on a monthly rental of Rs. 700. The garages on the ground floor are said to have been used by the landlord himself for the purpose of his business. The total rental of the premises amounted to Rs. 1,125 per month and the owner's portion has been valued at Rs. 75 per month. On the basis of this valuation of the rental the tax was fixed.2. Before the Small Cause Court Judge the correctness of the assessment based on the rents so derived from th...
K.R.S. Gurumurthy Pathar (by L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR404(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for decision at the instance of the assessee:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,500on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is justified in law ?'The assessee is a goldsmith by profession. He has also started a business in diamonds on March 7, 1958. On 24th February, 1959, the assessee and his brother went to Karur on business. At that time, the Central Excise authorities seized from them diamonds, jewellery and other precious stones amounting to 36 carats and 90 cents, the value of which came to Rs. 26,800. Before the Central Excise authorities the assessee contended that diamonds weighing 5.57 carats represented a consignment received from H.B. Shah, that jewellery weighing 7.38 carats represented the consignment received from one Alagappa Chettiar, and that diamonds weighing 19'50 carats had been inherited from his father. The Central Excis...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. H.Y. Cassim Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR467(Mad)
1. The question in this case is whether the sale proceeds of standing blue-gum trees, a sum of Rs. 9,293.14, constituted agricultural income liable to tax. The Tribunal differing from the revenue and purporting to follow Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Kailas Rubber & Company Ltd., : [1966]60ITR435(SC) , held that the sale proceeds did not constitute such income, but they should be treated as capital. There is no evidence one way or the other how the blue-gum trees came into existence on the dry land of the assessee. But the Tribunal proceeded thus :' Blue-gum trees are generally known for the use of their leaves for obtaining eucalyptus oil. If they are cut and sold it is obvious that they were no longer of any use for getting eucalyptus oil. Cutting of the trees would therefore amount to the destruction of a capital asset and the sale proceeds of such cut trees would only be capital receipts and not revenue receipts.'2. It seems to us that in & matter like this, it is not ...
Indian Institute of Engineering Technology Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR94(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee was a partnership concern constituted under a deed of partnership dated August 1, 1948, consisting of three partners. The business of the partnership is that of conducting classes and giving private tuition and educational instructions to students appearing for various technical examinations. It was conducting a technical educational institution under the name and style of 'Indian Institute of Engineering Technology'. The accounting year adopted by the firm was the year ending 30th April. Up to the assessment year 1959-60, the firm applied for registration and was granted registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and was assessed as a registered firm. 2. For the assessment year 1960-61, relevant to the previous year ending April 30, 1960, the assessee on July 4, 1960, applied for renewal of the registration of the firm under Section 26A of the Act and on October 25, 1960, filed a return showing a nil i...
Paul Ponnuswamy Nadar and anr. Vs. Jayaprakash and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ166
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs' 8/10th shares in the suit properties. The plaintiffs' case is as follows:2. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of defendants 1 and 2. The first plaintiff was born on 27th December, 1946, the second plaintiff on 2nd January, 1954 and the third plaintiff on 12th March, 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. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 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 first plaintiff's maternal uncle on...
Sarayakaran Vs. Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad448
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The matter comes before us on a reference by Ganesan, J. The learned Judge thought that there was a conflict of decisions and therefore it should be resolved. But on the view we are inclined to take there is no conflict of decision. The question is at what stage an application under Section 3(1) of the Partition Act of 1893 should be made is it before an order has been made under Section 2 or an application under Section 3(1) could be made even thereafter. but before the sale is actually held. That is how the question has been propounded by the referring Judge.2. On a plain reading of Sections 2 and 3, it seems to us that the right to apply under Section 3(1) arises the moment a request has been made under Section 2. If a direction for sale of the property has been given under Sec. 2, it does not follow that an application under Section 3(1) cannot be made thereafter. All that is necessary is that in order that an application under Section 3(1) may be considered, th...
Chesebrough Pond's Inc. Vs. the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC464(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, C.J.1. The order which is the subject-matter of these petitions, is this :The petitioners are informed that it is not proposed to stay the collection of further amount of tax of Rs. 1,40,041.21 due from them under Section 39-A(2) of the Act.2. Section 39-A(2) says that, pending the exercise of the powers of appeal, revision or review, the appropriate appellate authority, or revising or reviewing authority may, on application made by the assessing authority or the assessee, stay the refund to the assessee of any amount overpaid, or the collection of further amount of tax due from the assessee, in pursuance of the order which is the subject-matter of appeal, revision or review. It may be seen that the sub-section vests in the appellate authority or revising or reviewing authority full discretion to direct stay of collection of further amount of tax due from the assessee, in pursuance of the order which is the subject-matter of appeal, revision or review. But, where such ...
South Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR500(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following three Questions have been referred to us for decision:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,05,357 being the reserve created under the society's bye-law 37(1 )(iv) was includible in the income of the society ?(2) Whether the assessee was entitled to the exemption in respect of the sum of Rs. 62,540 under Section 14(3)(i)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? and(3) Whether, on. the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to rebate under Section 15B(2)(v) of the Income-tax Act in the sum of Rs. 22,013 paid to the Central Co-operative Training Institute ?'2. The assessee in this case is a co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. Its bye-laws had been registered with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the previous year ending June 30, 1960, relevant for the assessment year 1961-62, the society debited its profit and loss account with a sum o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Ii Vs. South Arcot District Co-oper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR371(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - The assessee in these cases is a co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. In the previous year ending June 30, 1960, the society entered into an agreement with the Government of Madras under which the assessee agreed to hold ammonium sulphate stock of the Government of Madras and to safely store them on their behalf and to maintain a true and full account for the stocks received and returned twice every month for a commission of Rs. 5 per ton on the quantity of fertiliser issued by the assessee from the stock. The assessee received a sum Rs. 31,316 on this account. Though this sum was originally included in its turnover, in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption in regard to the said sum under section 14(3)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption on the ground that the amount had been re...
Petha Padayachi Vs. Ramalinga Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad94
1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the compromise decree in O.S. 14 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Court Cuddalore, is invalid and not binding on him, and for recovery of possession of the suit properties, 2.48 acres of nanja, with past and future mesne profits from the defendants. His case was that he was a minor represented by his mother as guardian in the said suit and that by her gross negligence she had compromised the suit agreeing to give the said extent of 2.48 acres to the defendant.2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the mother of the plaintiff acting as his guardian entered into a compromise bona fide and in the interests of the plaintiff, that she was not grossly negligent in entering into the compromise and that, therefore, the compromise decree cannot be set aside. He also contended that in any event, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of the suit properties even if the compromise decree is set as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »