Chennai Court May 1973 Judgments
Amina Bi and ors. Vs. Khamurunnissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad54
1. The defendants are the appellants. The above second appeal arises out of O.S. 347 of 1965 filed for declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for possession. The above suit was tried by the trial court along with O.S. 612 of 1965 filed by the first defendant in O.S. 347 of 1965 for redemption of a simple mortgage executed by the plaintiff to secure a loan of Rs. 1000 on the security of the house and ground covered by O.S. 347 of 1965. The two suits were heard together. I shall now take up the allegations in O.S. 347 of 1965 out of which the above second appeal has arisen. The plaintiff claims title under a sale deed dated 3-4-1964 executed by one Fatima Bi in her favour and the allegation in the plaint is that the first defendant was occupying the B schedule property which is a portion of A schedule property as a tenant under her vendor (Fatima Bi) from 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10, that the said first defendant failed to pay the rent after her purchase and furthe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nallathambi Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1975]98ITR13(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus of Rs. 16,097 was assessable as business income ?'2. The assessee owns a number of houses and derives income therefrom. He also runs four hotels in Salem. On February 10, 1951, he purchased a house at 6/12, Trichy Road, and sold the same on March 11, 1952. Two months thereafter, on May 15, 1952, he purchased certain items of house properties at Devendrapuram in Salem and sold the same on November 27, 1957. On September 30, 3957, he had purchased a house property at 326-867-868, Chinaakadai Street, at a cost of Rs. 15,200. After making some improvements to this building at a cost of Rs. 6,203, he leased out the same for running a hotel from May 1, 1958, to April 30, 1959. He himself ran the hotel in that premises for a short time between April 23, 1959, and June 20, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR387(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. In the year ending on 30th April, 1961, it made a profit of Rs. 9,91,092. The balance of profit brought forward from the earlier year was Rs. 2,12,352. The board of directors in their report dated November 12, 1961, to the shareholders recommended the following appropriations for the year.Rs. 1.Provision for taxation (after adjustment of the surplus provision of thepreceding year.)5,00,0002.Proposed dividends : Preference shares31,465 Ordinary shares3,12,020 3,43,4853.Provisions for bonus to staff and workers60,0004.Transfer to general revenue2,00,0002. This left a balance of Rs. 99,759 which was carried forward to the next year. In computing the capital base as on May 1, 1961, under Rule 1 to the 2nd Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, the assessee claimed that the following sums should be treated as reserves :Rs.1.Provision for bonus28,4392.Provision for dividend3,43,4853....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR78(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. Its accounts for the year ending on 31st March, 1962, relevant for the assessment year 1962-63, were considered by the board of directors on 19th July, 1962. The profit in that year amounted to Rs. 12,39,139. After making certain provisions towards tax, gratuity, etc., there was a balance of Rs. 5,88,365. The board of directors recommended the following appropriations:Rs.Transfer to development rebate reserve :55,000Proposed dividend :Preference35,746Ordinary4,87,8585,78,6042. This left a balance of Rs. 9,760. The provisions made towards tax liability and actual payments of tax were as under :Rs.Provision as on 1-4-19614,00,000Provision made during the year4,30,0008,30,000Less : Advance tax for 1962-63 1,08,507Provisional tax paid for 1961-623,93,8515,02,3583. The provision for taxation as on March 31, 1961, was Rs. 2,91,493 as against the actual tax liability for 1961-62 of Rs. 2,85,343 leaving a surplus of Rs. 6,150. The appro...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Natarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR347(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,000 was not a capital loss within the meaning of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, did not apply to the transaction resulting in the loss of Rs. 53,761 incurred by the assessee ?' 2. The assessee who is a chartered accountant purchased in 1948 50 cumulative preference snares in South India Sheet Metal Company Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 5,000. He was receiving dividend from the said company up to the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1952-53. In 1956 the company went into liquidation. On December 8, 1960, the official liquidator informed the assessee that the assets of the company wer...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR429(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company under the management of a private limited company called ' S. S. Pillai and Sons Private Ltd.' The profits of the company for the year ending December 31, 1961, was Rs. 6,26,772.64 and there was a brought forward profit of Rs. 6,227.94 from the earlier year. The accounts for the said year were considered by the board of directors on May 31, 1962, and the following appropriations had been made before declaring the dividends :Rs.Provision for tax3,60,000Proposed dividends2,31.4702. For the purpose of computation of capital as on January 1, 1962, the assessee claimed that the above sums as also a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 set apart for payment of advance tax for the earlier year should be taken as ' other reserves ' occurring in Rule 1 of Schedule 2 to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). The Super Profits Tax Officer, however, held that the above sums were not includible in the capital as on January 1...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rathinasabapathy Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR555(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is the same in both the cases. He owned 500 equity shares and 277 preference shares in Best & Co. (Private) Ltd., Madras, of the face value of Rs. 100 each. 2. In his wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1961-62, he valued these shares at Rs. 77,700, as per their face value. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the said valuation of the shares, but computed the market value of those shares on the basis of the balance-sheet of Messrs. Best and Co. for that year and determined the value at Rs. 1,66,278. 3. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee again valued these shares at Rs. 77,700 on the basis of their face value. The Wealth-tax Officer again did not accept this valuation but computed the market value of the shares on the basis of the balance-sheet of Messrs. Best and Company for that year and determined their value at Rs. 1,99,200. 4. The assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the orders of the Wealth-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Veerabhadra thevar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR357(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following two questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether the assessment of Rs. 223 as income from business is valid in law 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 80,530 is assessable to tax under the provisions of the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?' 2. The assessee was carrying on transport business as a sole proprietor. On 3rd of April, 1959, a private limited company in the name of Swathanthiram Transports Private Ltd. was incorporated. The share capital of the company was 600 shares of Rs. 100 each. The assessee transferred to this company his entire transport business. The entries relating to effecting this transfer was made in the books of the assessee on April 2, 1959. The written down value of the motor vehicles was Rs. 58,066, These weretransferred to the company for a sum of Rs. 1,37,186. Similarly, a car whose written down value was Rs. 6,720 was transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carborundum Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR411(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee, a foreign company having its registered office in America, has been declared as a company by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 2(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee-company specialised in the manufacture of bonded and coated abrasive products. As part of its business the assessee continuously carries on research with a view to find new methods for the manufacture of these products and to improve their quality. The fruits of this research are incorporated in pamphlets which are made available not only to its own technicians but also to such other persons, firms or companies with whom the assessee has entered into agreement and who are engaged in the manufacture of these products.2. The assessee entered into an agreement, dated June 22, 1955, with an Indian company, Messrs. Carborundum Universal Ltd., having its registered office at Madras. According to the terms of the said agreement the assessee was to receive from the Indian comp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ranganayaki Gopalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR529(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. On the 18th March, 1960, an agreement was executed between the Hindu Office and the National Press Employees Union and M/s. Kasturi and Sons Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'), the proprietors of Hindu and Sports and Pastime, for payment of gratuity. Under the scheme of this agreement, every employee who had been in service or continues in service after 1st January, 1957, would be entitled to the payment of gratuity on retirement, death or termination otherwise than as punishment on the basis and conditions referred to therein. In order to give effect to this agreement, an actuary was appointed to report on the financial arrangements needed for starting and maintaining the gratuity scheme. The two principal questions on which the actuary's advice was sought were regarding the amounts that have to be set apart for each year after the inception of the gratuity fund as and from 1st July, 1960, and regarding the liability that has already arisen in respect of the exis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »