Chennai Court September 1975 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.
B.M. Mundkur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Mad72
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 2703 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. Most of the facts are not in controversy. One Mr. Srinivasa Rao was an insurance agent who died issueless on 8-6-1966. The second respondent herein is his widow. The appellant and the third and fourth respondents are said to be his brothers, and the fifth respondent is said to be his sister. At the time of his death, his mother, by name, Uma Bai, also survived, but she died on 29-6-1968. The said Srinivasa Rao had married the second respondent herein under the Special Marriage Act, and, accordingly, under Section 33(b) of the Indian Succession Act, on the death of the said Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent herein being his widow would be entitled to a half share, and the appellant and respondent 3 to 5 would be entitled to the remaining half share in the estate of Srinivasa Rao. It is adverted in the plaint that after the death of Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent took ...
R. Gopalakrishna and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR82(Mad)
1. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners. Under the Act of 1922, which was then in force, it had to file a return within a period of time allowed by the general notice under Section 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 It filed returns for the two assessment years, i.e., 1960-61 and 1961-62 on March 6, 1965, by which time the Income-tax Act, 1961, had come into force. For the failure of the assessee to file the return within the period contemplated by the public notice issued under Section 22(1), the Income-tax Officer took up proceedings under Section 271l(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied penalty as contemplated by it amounting to Rs. 7,200 and Rs. 8,245, respectively, for the two years. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who cancelled the penalty on the ground that no penalty could be imposed under the provisions of the 1961 Act for the default under the Act of 1922. Considering the default in the light of the p...
R. Chandrasekaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR454(Mad)
1. These two references can he taken together for consideration as the point raised is identical. The two assessees are the two partners of a firm known as 'M/s. Gopalakrishnan and Bros.' The partners were not served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. They did not, however, comply with the requirements of a public notice issued under Section 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 which was in force in the relevant years. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 which had come into force on 1st of April, 1962. The two assessees filed returns for both the assessments years, i.e., 1960-61 and 1961-62, on 2tst February, 1966, in pursuance of such notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer completed the reassessment arid levied penalties in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961. Taking the case of Gopalakrishnan as typical of the two cases, the amounts of pena...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rikadas Dhuraji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR111(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm of partnership consisting of four partners. Their names and the different shares held by them are given below :1. Dhuraji Khusalji ... 12/28 share2. Rikadas Dhuraji ... 5/28 share3. Devichand Dharmachand ... 4/28 share4. Chaganlal Kesarimal ... 7/28 share The firm had purchased a house property bearing No. 34, Perumal Mudali Street, Madras, on November 21, 1947, for Rs. 36,000. It had effected some improvements and the total cost as per accounts as on November 1, 1962, amounted to Rs. 63,327. This sum stood to the debit of the property account in the books of the firm. The income from this property was returned by the firm from the date of its purchase. On November 1, 1962, the 1st, 3rd and 4th partners executed what is styled as release deed by which they had released all their rights and interests in the said property in favour of the second partner. This deed also was registered under the Registration Act. The value of the propert...
K. Thirumalai Nambi Vs. Maharaja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ55
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The short facts in the second appeal are as follows:2. The plaintiff preferred O.S. No. 343 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil, for recovering the mortgage amount under Exhibit A-1, dated 14th November, 1968, which was executed in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,000. In and by the said document, the defendant undertook to pay interest and principal, separately and allow the plaintiff to sue for interest that has accrued, for three consecutive months. Interest of Rs. 25 was paid only for one month, and thereafter, there was default to pay the same upto 14th October, 1969, which led to the filing of Small Causes Suit No. 384 of 1969 and obtaining of a decree for the interest alone. Hence, the present, suit for the recovery of the subsequent interest and the entire principal outstanding.3. The defendant admitted the execution of the hypothecation bord and also the Small Causes Suit and the decree thereon. Bu...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. G. Parthasarathy Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR873(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act relating to the inclusion of two amounts of Rs. 1,27,653 and Rs. 10,663 in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. One Govinda Reddiar died on 5th June, 1963. The aforesaid two amounts relate to two properties covered by a partition deed executed on 7th May, 1960, between the said Govinda Reddiar and his three sons, Jayarama, Balarama and Parthasarathy. The circumstances relating to this partition have been set out in the partition deed itself and we may briefly refer to them. 2. Govinda Reddiar started in the early part of this century a business, which prospered in the manufacture and sale of bricks, tiles, etc., at Ekattuthangal and other places. The business was treated as a joint family business and from the income of the business, various items of immovable properties were acquired. On account of advancing age and loss of eye-sight, Govinda Reddiar was unable to attend to the business comp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anamalai Bus Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR267(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The assessee, a private limited company, is carrying on business of operating a fleet of buses. It submitted a return of income for the previous year ending on 31st March, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, showing an income of Rs. 6,08,534. The net profit as per the profit and loss account was Rs. 5,21,951 and the return was filed after adding back to the net profit shown in the profit and loss account certain donations made by the assessee during the relevant previous year, which would not be eligible for deduction in computing the total income. The Income-tax Officer assessed the company on a total income of Rs. 6,43,390 and determined the tax payable thereon at Rs. 2,89,205 leaving distributable income of Rs. 3,54,185. The company had declared a dividend of Rs. 1,63,520. 2. The Income-tax Officer considered this declaration of dividend in the light of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act of 1922, which was in force during the relevant year. He examined the...
In Re: Dhanabal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1969
Varadarajan, J.1. The three appellants, Dhanabal, Ramanujam and Muthuthamizharasan, accused 1 to 3 respectively were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot Division in S. C. No. 26 of 1974, A-1 for the offence of murder of his sister Rasayal at about 1.30 P. M, on 5-12-1973 at Thulukkamanyam in Komaratchi village limits near Keelakarai by chopping off her head with a veeoharuval and the other two accused for the murder of Rasayal in furtherance of common intention or alternatively for abetment of the murder of Rasayal and found guilty, A-1 under Section 302, I.P.C. and the other two accused under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The first accused Dhanabal is the elder brother and accused 2 and 3 are the younger brothers of Rasayal, the deceased victim in this case. The third accused is employed as a Tamil Pandit in Pachayappa's High School, Chidambaram and he used to visit Keelakkarai village at least once in a month. P.W. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›