Chennai Court November 1974 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.
Smt. V. Amirtham Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR350(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference is under the Income-tax Act. The following question oi law has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,650 or any part thereof is liable to be included in the total income of the assessee by the operation of Section 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?.'2. L. G. Balakrishan, L.G. Varadarajulu and L. G. Ramamurthi are three brothers. Their respective wives are B. Sarojini, V. Amirtham Ammal and R. Sarojini. On March 31, 1963, each of the three ladies mentioned above transferred certain shares held by each of them in Messrs. Rayala-seema Passenger and Goods Transports (Private) Ltd., as follows :TansferorTransfereeDate of transferNo. of shares transferredSale price (face value of the shares)Market valueRs.Rs.Smt. B. SarojiniR. Sumanth (Minor son of Smt. R. Sarojini)31-3-6311511,50046,000Smt. V. Amirtham AmmalB. Vijayakumar(Minor ...
East India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR287(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee was originally a private limited company incorporated in July, 1942, but later on converted into a public limited company on 25th August, 1948. For the assessment year 1954-55, corresponding to the previous year ending 31st December, 1953, the assessee had not declared any dividend. The Income-tax Officer found that it was not a company in which the public were substantially interested. In that view, he passed an order under Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), treating the sum of Rs. 2,43,588, being the undistributed portion of the assessable income, as dividend deemed to have been distributed among the shareholders of the company. This order was made on the finding that equity shares of the assessee carrying not less than 25 per cent, of the voting power were not beneficially held by the public at the end of the relevant previous year and that the shares of the assessee-company were not the subject of dealing...
M. Abdul Khalick and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR43(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned single judge in W. P. No. 929/67 (M. Abdul Khalick & Co. v. Income-tax Officer : [1972]86ITR72(Mad) . The petitioner is a firm of partnership. Originally, it consisted of five partners, of whom one was Sadullah Badsha. Sadullah Badsha (hereinafter called 'the deceased') died on July 22, 1952. Thereafter, there was a reconstitution of the firm by a deed dated August 2, 1952, under which the widow of the deceased became a partner and his two minor daughters were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The deceased was in arrears of income-tax in respect of assessment years 1950-51 to 1952-53 to an extent of Rs. 69,335.94. Corning to know that the deceased at the time of his death had to his credit a sum of Rs. 29,328-11-2 in the partnership firm, recovery proceedings were initiated against the legal representatives in respect of that money. By a letter dated November 29, 1955, the Income-tax Officer informed the petiti...
M.S. Balakrishna Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR557(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assesses is a wholesale trader in rice and pulses. In respect of the assessment years 1955 56 and 1956-57, the sales tax authorities, on the basis of certain anamath accounts recovered during a raid, adopted a multiple of ten times of the turnover not disclosed in the returns and added on the same The assessee was questioning the addition to the turnover but without success. Thereafter, he filed a revision to this court. Pending the tax revision petition, the assesses prayed for stay of collection of the disputed sales tax. This court ordered payment of the disputed tax in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000 each. As per this direction the assessee paid the disputed tax between February, 1959, and March, 1961, that is, before 1st April, 1961. Ultimately, the High Court by an order dated September 4, 1961, modified the assessment orders by adopting a multiple of seven times on the turnover disclosed in the anamath accounts. The total sales tax on the disputed turnover ...
National Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR97(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a firm of partnership carrying on bus transport business under the name and style of National Roadways. The firm was constituted by an instrument of partnership executed by 14 individuals as partners. The partnership came to be constituted under the following circumstances. All these 14 partners had individually advanced moneys to the total extent of Rs. 77,000 to one Sena Munuswamy Mudaliar who was operating two buses on two different routes. He was unable to repay the debt, nor any interest thereon. Therefore, he desired to make over these two buses with the route permits in consideration of a sum of Rs. 60,000 and also consented to repay the balance of Rs. 17,000 with interest. The 14 creditors considering that they cannot take over the buses individually formed into a partnership to carry on the bus transport in partnership. They executed the partnership deed on April 1, 1963. On the same day Sena Munuswamy Mudaliar executed an agreement in favour of...
Mrs. Nainammal Bibi Vs. Mrs. Umma Habiba Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ29
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one in ejectment and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The suit property which is a land with building was originally owned by Khader Masthan and Mohideen Masthan who are brothers. Both of them are dead. Mohamed Hanifa, the son of Khader Masthan had leased out the property to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. Defendants 2 to 11 are in possession of portions of the property as sub-lessees under the first defendant.2. Subsequently the heirs of Khader Masthan and Mohideen Masthan including the abovesaid Mohamed Hanifa who had leased out the property to the first defendant sold the property to the plaintiff under Exhibit A-1 dated 17th February, 1966. The vendors have issued a notice as per Exhibit B-5 dated 19th February, 1966 to the first defendant intimating about the abovesaid sale of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself issued a notice, E...
S. Natarajan Vs. Amirthasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ428
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an order made in an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment - debtor-defendant is the appellant. In execution of a money decree, the first respondent decree-holder brought certain properties of the appellant to sale. The sale was held on 9th April, 1973 and the second respondent was the highest bidder for Rs. 7,505 subject to two security bonds of Rs. 15,000 each over the property. The sale warrant was issued for a sum of Rs. 7,500. In the sale warrant, the property is described only by boundaries and stated to be comprised in T.S. No. 2292 of Ward No. 1 of Thanjavur municipality. The appellant presented on 5th June, 1973, Execution Application No. 537 of 1973, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the sale on the ground, amongst others, that though the property within the boundaries mentioned in the sale proclamation comprised two survey n...
S. Manickam Chettiar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR283(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. In respect of assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, a partnership firm called M/s. Oakwell Estate, Haldmulla, Ceylon, and one of its partners, SP. Viswanathan Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'), were assessed to tax in respect of their income arising from Ceylon, by the income-tax authorities in India, on the basis that the control and management of the firm vested in India. The total tax demand, after setting off for double taxation relief, which was outstanding and payable by the assessee, was Rs. 93,357. The assessee is an Indian citizen holding Indian passport and had been residing at Ceylon on a visa issued by the Ceylon Government. He had no properties in India.2. Though the demands had been issued as early as 1952 and 1953, the tax had been in arrears and the assessee did not appear to have taken any steps to repatriate monies from Ceylon for payment of tax arrears. He came to India some time in 1972, in connection with the death of...
Tamil Nadu (Madras State) Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT57(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act LIII of 1961. It has a manufacturing unit at Cudilore in which cotton fabrics are woven. It has also another unit called the yarn and cloth processing centre at Erode. Under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, manufacture of cotton fabrics is liable to excise duty. But Notification No. 47 of 1962, dated 24th April 1962, the Central Government exempted unprocessed cotton fabrics falling under Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act if manufactured on a handloom, from the whole of the duty leviable thereon. The petitioner, Society, as one manufacturing handloom fabrics falling under Item No. 19, therefore, under the said Notification, was exempt from excise duty in respect of cotton fabrics, woven in the Cuddalore unit. By two other Notifications No.111 and No. 112 of 1962, dated 13-6-1962, the Central Government, in exercise of their powers under Ru...
Velayya Reddiar Vs. Errachi Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad273
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. L. P. A. 39 of 1968-- On the view we take, it is not necessary to deal with the correctness of the decision in Venkatarao v. Suryarao, ILR (1950) Mad 39. The suit, out of which the Letters Patent appeal arises, was instituted by the respondent for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession. There was a money decree in O. S. No. 362 of 1950, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulittalai On 16-7-1950, there was attachment before judgment of the suit property The attachment was made absolute on 23-8-1950. On 30-1-1951, followed a money decree. On 2-4-1953, when an execution petition was taken up, the judgment-debtor having died, his widow was brought on record. On 24-9-1953, there was an order to proclaim and sell on 25-11-1953. On 30-11-1953, the matter was called again. Though the sale was held on 25-11-1953, there was no bid and so, on 30-11-1953, there was an order made that since there was no bid steps should be taken in a week. The mat...