Privy Council Cases

P.A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad590

Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.2. Under Section 3 of Act I [1] of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, 1-2-1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any judgment to which the said Act applies. A 'judgment to which this Act applies' is defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act as 'any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act have not been passed.'Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases from the application of the enactment. The question then is whether the judgm...

Sadanala Narayana Rao and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver, Rajahmundry ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ591

Mack, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, should, as the following facts will show, have been more properly filed as an appeal under Section 75(2) of the Insolvency Act. I do not, however, propose to attach any importance to this technicality in disposing of it on its merits.2. The short facts are these,. The petitioners are minors by their mother as guardian who took a conveyance of about 11 acres of land from-an insolvent in 1940 prior, of course, to his adjudication. It is common ground that the Official Receiver got this alienation set aside under Section 53 of the Insolvency Act. The petitioners filed an appeal in the District Court, East Godavari, the first Court of insolvency being the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram. In the District Court, the Official Receiver entered into a compromise with the petitioners by which they undertook to deposit Rs. 1,000 in Court in one month to ' meet the claims of the creditors and the necessary expenses in...

P. A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1949]17ITR353(Mad)

The Order of the Court was made byRAJAMANNAR, C.J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court in Referred Case No. 19 of 1946. As a question arose before us and was discussed whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court against the judgment of this Court, we may deal with the point briefly.Under Section 3 of the Act I of 1948, as from the appointed day, that is, the first day of February, 1948, an appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from the any judgment to which the said Act applies. A judgment 'to which this Act applies' is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as 'any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in a civil case from which a direct appeal could have been brought to His Majesty in Council, either with or without special leave, if this Act had not been passed.' Undoubtedly, the judgment of this Court was passed in a civil case, because the category of civil cases excludes only criminal cases form the application...

Sri Raja Velugoti, Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachenda Bahadur Garu and O ...

Court : Privy Council

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 17th September 1943, which varied a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore dated 3lst October 1940. [2] The first question for determination is whether under a contract of indemnity dated 25th August 1910, the appellants are liable to indemnify respondent 1 for loss sustained by him in connection with a certain purchase. In the event of the appellants being held not liable respondent l desires to contend that respondent 2 is liable to make good to him the whole or part of his loss. [3] The relevant; facts are as follows : One Inuganti Venkata Rama Rao, the son of respondent 2 (who will be referred to hereafter as "the son"), obtained from his maternal grandfather, by way of gift, a one-fourth share in the Mokhasa Village of Somavaram. During his minority, respondent 2 (who will be referred to generally as "the vendor"), as his guardian, agreed to...

Ratanlal Chamaria Vs. Keshar Deo Chamaria

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC195

LORD MACDERMOTT: This is a consolidated appeal, by special leave, from a judgment and two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 17th May 1945, which affirmed two judgments and two orders of the said High Court in its original civil jurisdiction dated, as to one judgment and order, 3lst May 1944, and as to the other judgment and order, 2nd June 1944. The judgments and orders appealed from set aside, under S. 30, Arbitration Act, 1940, two arbitration awards made in two High Court suits between the parties, superseded the references to arbitration and directed that the suits should proceed in the normal manner. [2] These suits were no. 183 of 1923 and No. 1869 of 1937. They will be referred to in greater detail later. [3] The present dispute relates only to some of the numerous differences which have arisen between various members of the Chamaria family and which have already produced a long and complex story of litiga...

Sir Kasturchand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom1

Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee, Sir Kasturchand Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessment years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on 15th November 1941, 26th August 1942 and 23rd August 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882 and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43, and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A (1), Income-tax Act on 20th May 1946 for the previo...

Sir Kasturchand, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR687

M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee Sir Kasturchand, Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessment years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on November 15, 1941, August 26, 1942, and August 23, 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now, it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882, and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43, and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act on May 20, 19...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Co-operative ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR692

M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, the B.B. & C.I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefit Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a Mutual Insurance Association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Section 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules contained in the schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chapter III, you compute them in the man...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Co-operative Mutu ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom43

Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assesses, the B. B. & C. I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefit Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60, Income-tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a Mutual Insurance Association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Sections 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules contained in the schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore, the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chap. III, you compute them in the manner laid down in th...

Sir Kasturchand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1949]17ITR493(Bom)

CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee, Sir Kasturchand Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessments years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on the November 15, 1941, August 26, 1942, and the August 23, 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882 and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for the 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43 and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act on the May 20, 1...