1
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-09-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad631; [1950]18ITR302(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows: 'Whether in the circumstances Section 42, Income-tax Act, as amended in 1939, would apply to 'residents' as well?'The facts out of which this reference arises may be briefly stated. The assessee is a merchant carrying on business in Madras in paper and stationery and has been assessed as an individual resident and ordinarily resident in British India. In February 1942, the assessee opened a branch of his business at Mysore where paper and articles of stationery were sold. It is common ground that there have been no remittances of money or profits from Mysore to British India. The Income-tax Officer, however, found that there was an intimate business connection between the bead office at Madras and the branch at Mysore, and held that a portion of the profits earned by the business at Mysore should be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India by reason of Section 42 (1), Income-tax Act of 1922, as am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad671; [1950]18ITR237(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This reference raises a question of the correct interpretation of the expression 'the period between the end of the previous year and the date of such succession' occurring in Section 25(4), Income-tax Act. The question formulated by the Appellate Tribunal and referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Act is in these terms ;'Whether on the facts of this case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period the profits of which were entitled to exemption from the payment of the tax under Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act, 1939, was the period commencing from 1st July 1938, and coding with 29th February 1940,' In short, the dispute is whether the 'previous year' referred to in the Sub-section should be taken as the year ending on 30th June 1938, or 30th June 1939. The assessee contends that it is the former, while the Income-tax Commissioner maintains that it is the latter. There is no decided case on the point and the question has to be settled by an inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-17-1950
Reported in : AIR1952Mad27; (1951)2MLJ438
Subba Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent in this case challenges the constitutional validity of the Provincial Insolvency Amendment Act, 1948, in so far as it affected the agricultural land. The facts are in a small compass and may briefly be stated. 2. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. The 14th defendant is the wife of the first defendant. They constituted members of a joint Hindu family of which the first defendant was the manager. He became heavily involved and was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 63 of 1931 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The plaint schedule properties were sold in his insolvency by the Official Receiver. Some items were purchased by one Srinivasa Ayyar on 24th July 1933 under Ex. p-2 and other properties by the fourth defendant under Ex. P-4, dated 12-12-1935. Defendants 4 to 13 are the alienees or their successors-in-interest. Usufructuary mortgage interest in the second item devolved on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1950
Reported in : AIR1952Mad305; [1951]19ITR261(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. By an order of this Court in C. M. P. No. 2928 of 1947 dated 25th August 1947, the Appellate Tribunal was directed under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act to refer to this Court the following two questions and they have been accordingly referred to us. They are : '1. Whether there is any material for the Tribunal's finding that the appellants (Respondents in this case) were being assessed on cash basis in the prior years? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the sum of Rs. 2,26,850/- could not be assessed for the assessment year 1942-43 is correct in law?' The assessment year with which we are now concerned in this reference is the year 1943-43, corresponding to the accounting year ending with 31st March 1942. The assessees are the firm of Messrs. K.R.M.T.T. Thiagaraja Chetty and Company. They were originally members of an undivided Hindu family and alter partition in the family they constituted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad541
1. On 3rd March 1933, one Sivakami Achi obtained an order for restitution against another, Sivaramakrishna Aiyar, in respect of a sum of Rs. 5280 odd. On 29th August 1933, Sivaramakrishna Aiyar died leaving a will dated 1st December 1918 by which he disposed of his properties in various ways. One of the properties dealt with under the will is a house in Kumbakonam. He gave a life estate in this house to his widow Dharmambal and the remainder to Kuppalu Ammal and her heirs. This Kuppalu Ammal, it may be mentioned, was a daughter of Dharmambal's sister. In November1933 Dharmambal orally surrendered her life estate in the house in favour of Kuppalu Ammal. In 1940 Kuppalu died and thereafter her sons--they are the appellants before us--obtained possession of the house. Sivakami Achi died in September 1938 and her interests devolved on her daughter Alamelu Achi. On 7th February 1942 Alamelu Achi filed E. A. No. 196 of 1942 in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram praying that the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-25-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad521
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. All these four second appeals by the Provincial Government of Madras raise interesting and difficult questions of law under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act (IX [9] of 1939) referred to in the judgment as 'the Act'). The appellants were unsuccessful in both the Courts and hence these second appeals. 2. The four suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted in the District Munsif's Court of Bellary by different plaintiffs against the Provincial Government for a declaration that the assessment of sales-tax imposed upon them was illegal and void. As the suits raised common questions of law and similar questions of fact, by consent of parties they were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment both by the District Munsif and by the learned District Judge. 3. The plaintiffs are commission agents who carry on trade at a place called Adoni in Bellary district. Besides the commission business, they also carry on independent bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-23-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad520; [1951]21CompCas85(Mad); (1951)IMLJ18
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of an action instituted by the two respondents who were share-holders and directors of the first appellant company known as 'The Saraswathi Vilasam Shanmu-ghanandha Nidhi, Ltd.,' Vellore. Appellants 2 and 3 who were defendants 2 and sin the lower Court were respectively the Secretary and Vice-President of the said Nidhi. The suit was for a declaration that a certain resolution passed by the general body on 30-4-1944 was invalid. The suit is a representative suit.2. Article 5 of the Memorandum of Association of the company is as follows:'The share capital of the company is Rs. 20,000 divided into 2000 shares of Rs. 10 each.'The object of the company was to carry on the business of banking. The articles of association of the company provided for the management of the company. Article 21 was as follows:'The members of the Managing Committee shall each take not less than 26 shares in the company.'Article 20 ran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-27-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad1015
Govinda Menon, J.1. Madras Act I of 1947 designated the 'Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1947' came into force on 12-3-1947 and was intended to be in force for a period of one year. But by Sub-clause (4) of Section 1 the Legislature had authorised the Provincial Government to extend the operation of the Act by means of notification in the Provincial Gazette; and this was done by the notification of the Provincial Government for a period of one year more, on the 11th March 1948, which meant that the Act was to continue till the 12th March 1949. The Act had also provided that the power of arrest and detention under the Act could be delegated by the Provincial Government to District Magistrates and to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras and by G. O. 907 dated 21st March 1947 this power was delegated to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras. Acting under that delegation, an order under Section 2(1) (a) of the said Statute was issued by the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad388; (1950)2MLJ653
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises lost before the trial Count but succeeded on appeal. The relevant facts are these:2. The plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 3 for over Rs. 9000 in the Dharwar Sub-Court in the State of Bombay and obtained an attachment before judgment of lands belonging to defendant 3 in Harvi of the Harpanahalli taluk of the district of Bellary. The attachment was ordered on 12-11-1936 and was actually effected on 2-12-1936. Defendant 3 on 4-11-1936, sold these lands to defendant 1 by a registered sale deed, Ex. P-2, for Rs. 600. Defendant 1, in his turn, sold them to defendant 2 under Ex. D-1, a registered sale deed, for Rs. 800 on 30-7-1942. Then the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale deeds Exs. P-2 and D-1 were void, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on him. The finding of both the Courts below is that the two alienations were brought about fraudulently to defeat, in anticipation, the atta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-03-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad12; (1950)IIMLJ818
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The suit in this case is for damages for breach of an agreement of lease.The document evidencing the agreement has been ruled out by both the Courts below for want of registration. The question is whether it has been rightly so ruled out. 2. A typed translation of the document has been placed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, which has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant as correct. It runs as follows :'Agreement dated 30-5-1942 executed by R. Subba Reddiar residing at Chinnakandanur, Velliyanai village, Karur taluk in favour of E. Ruruga Mudaliar of Mohanur village, Namakkal taluk. Having agreed this day for a lease on a rent of Rs. 600 per year in respect of 4 acres known as Onnekalkani etc., belonging to me in Vangal, I have received this day Rs. 100 as advance. You having agreed for 31/2 years (in respect of) the above lands, you shall pay the rent at the end of Kalavati each year and shall get receipt therefor.' 3. It i...
Tag this Judgment!