Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: chennai Year: 1965 Page 1 of about 107 results (0.045 seconds)

Jul 12 1965 (HC)

S.T.S. Swaminathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-12-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad328

..... the light of particular and peculiar facts and circumstances. learned counsel for the revenue has reminded us of the limited jurisdiction of this court under section 66(2) of the income-tax act, 1922, and says that if there are two views possible on the factual inference to be drawn from primary facts established on material, and the tribunal has chosen to ..... he sole the said property and realised $ 8,200, in excess over the purchase price. the assessee claimed that this excess realisation was a capital accretion not chargeable to tax. the income-tax officer being of the view that the assessee should be treated as a dealer in properties during the accounting year, held that excess realisation was a revenue receipt. in forming ..... assistant commissioner cannot be sustained, his further observation that the properties were never segregated or separated from the money-lending accounts will also have no significance. in fact while the income-tax officer was of the view that the assessee should be treated as a dealer in property, a view which the tribunal accepted, the appellate assistance commissioner does not appear ..... , he purported to follow an earlier order of the appellate assistant commissioner in respect of this very assessee relating to previous years.on appeal, the appellate assistant commissioner of income-tax considered that the property that was sole in november 1956, like the other properties allotted to his share at the partition, constituted the stock-in-trade in his money- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1965 (HC)

T.T. Rathnasabapathy Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-01-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad340

..... 1. this reference under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, raises a question as to the character of the assessee's income which he received during the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, as director's sitting fees from certain limited ..... for directorship so that the assessee can only hold the directorship so long as he holds the qualifying shares which belong to the family. commissioner of income-tax v. palaniappa chettiar, 1964-53 itr 581 (mad), decided by a division bench of this court, related to sitting fees received by a managing director ..... can be blended with the assets of the joint hindu family but, for such blending, the fee must exist: murugappa chetty and sons v. commissioner of income-tax, : mallesappa v. mallappa, . it is therefore stated that as the sitting fees accrue to the assessee from time to time every year, what did ..... by the assessee of the shares was without any detriment to his status of hindu undivided family and (3) that piyare lal adishwar lal v. commissioner of income tax, , and notthat governs the facts of this case. on the otherhand for the revenue, the argument is: (1) if the shares belong to the joint ..... in the assessment year 1960-61.(2) on may 16, 1957, in relation to the assessment year for 1957-58, the assessee wrote to the fifth additional income tax, officer, coimbatore, stating:"until the year ended 31st march 1956, i was describing my status as 'individual' assessee.i hereby declare that from 31st march, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1965 (HC)

L. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-09-1965

Reported in : [1969]72ITR114(Mad)

..... venkatadri, j.1. this reference under section 66(2) of the income-tax act arises out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1955-56 (accounting year ended march 31, 1955).2. the assessee, l. ve. vairavan ..... a shop in ahmedabad selling drugs under different names and different management and under separate accounts, common ownership would hardly make them one business.'15. in commissioner of income-tax v. arunachalam chettiar, a.i.r. 1924 mad. 474, the assessee had several businesses, viz., money-lending, sugar, rice trade and bell-metal factory. ..... business. after he stopped the arecanut business for the time being, he transferred some of the moneys borrowed for arecanut business to the rice mill business. the income-tax officer allowed deduction of the interest paid on the borrowed moneys for the rice mill business. according to justice rowlatt in scales v. george thompson & co. ..... details of the loss claimed by him and also produced the account books as well as the unused import licence for arecanuts obtained by him.3. the income-tax officer, after scrutinising the accounts and other evidence produced by the assessee, practically accepted the assessee's claim of loss in arecanuts trade, but for ..... shows a loss, such loss may under section 24 of the act be set off against the profits or gains derived by the assessee from other heads of income of that year. in the present case, we are inclined to hold that the income-tax officer reached the right decision in law.17. in the result, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1965 (HC)

S.V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Rajabu Fathima Bukari and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-09-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Mad187; [1965]58ITR288(Mad); (1965)2MLJ338

..... plaintiff's, brought to my notice the decision of the supreme court in charu chandra kundu v. gurupada ghosh , and urgedthat, having regard to the provisions of the income-tax act of 1922 and the income-tax act of 1961, the evidence of sri marar would be totally inadmissible. i felt that, having regard to the importance of the question, and the fact that the commissioner ..... -section (3) ran thus:"nothing in this section shall apply to the disclosure..... "there followed several clauses, which, for the present, may be assumed not to apply. the income-tax act of 1961 repealed the income-tax act of 1922, but the repeal is immaterial for the particular question before us, because the provisions of s. 54 re-enacted in s. 137. section 137(1) and ..... not necessary to discuss the position further. it is clear that, if the evidence of sri marar would come under the terms of s. 54 of the income-tax act of 1922 or s. 137 of the income-tax act of 1961, it would be totally inadmissible, notwithstanding the fact that the concerned assessee, namely, buhari hotel, in connection with whose assessment the alleged initials were ..... , and further questions would have to be put to verify such evidence. such evidence in cross-examination would clearly be prohibited under s. 54 of the income-tax act of 1922 and s. 137 of the income-tax act of 1961. sri ramaprasada rao suggested that the cross-examination might be done without trenching on the prohibited area, and that the evidence which did not trench .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1965 (HC)

M.R. Chinnaswami Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-08-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Mad344; [1973]89ITR200(Mad)

..... a case where, after the family had become divided and orders had been passed under s. 25-a of the income-tax act, the income-tax officer purported to start proceedings under s. 34 to bring to tax income that had escaped assessment during the time when the family existed. the relevant notice was issued in the name of ..... the decision of this court was that when the family had ceased to exist in january 1946, it was not a 'person' for the purposes of income-tax act in march 1948, when the penalty was imposed. the learned judges observe that in order that the proceedings under s. 28 may be validity launched and ..... between, on the 25th january 1946, the partition of the family took place. the application under s. 25-a of the income-tax act was allowed on the 31st december 1948. the kartha of the family died after paying a portion of the penalty. proceedings were taken by the ..... the penalty on that family as a person is passed. this decision has been followed by the andhra pradesh high court in subba rao v. commr. of income-tax, : [1957]31itr867(ap) .(7) mr. balasubramaniam, for the department, contends that it has been recognised in the decisions of the supreme court that ..... s regular business, and an assessment was made accordingly. that assessment has become final. thereafter, the income-tax officer started proceedings under s. 28 of the act. he finally held that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income and imposed a penalty of rs. 7,500 under s. 28(1)(c). successive appeals to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1965 (HC)

Chinnammal and ors. Vs. Kumidhini

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-14-1965

Reported in : AIR1966Mad366; [1966]61ITR597(Mad)

..... petitioners, it is contended that as one of the statements made to the income-tax officer was by the defendants' father himself, the requisition to the income-tax officer would fall within the purview of s. 137(5). in ..... by consideration. the statements before the income-tax officer above referred to are supposed to be to the effect that according to the makers of those statement, there was no dealing between them. the court below dismissed the application in view of s. 137(1) of the income-tax act, 1961.(2) on behalf of the ..... court or the public servant.(3) no doubt held that the magistrate was in view of the facts in that case, justified in directing the income-tax officer to produce certain documents, which the accused had produced before him in the course of assessment proceedings relating to their employers. this was on ..... of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by their father, for sending for a statement made by the plaintiff's mother to an income-tax officer and the original statement of the deceased husband of the first defendant to that officer. the defendants denied execution of the promissory note by ..... support of this contention, reliance is placed on income-tax officer, central circle v. ramaratnam . i am unable to accept the contention. sub-section (5) of s. 137 of the i.t. act. 1961 does not, in my view, lift the bar imposed by sub-s. (1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1965 (HC)

East India Corporation Ltd., Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-19-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad7; [1966]61ITR16(Mad)

..... case. learned counsel for the assessee contends that this is a circular which the department officials were bound to follow under s. 5(8) of the income-tax act 1922, as held in navnitlal c. javeri v. k.n. sen, . as to the lastargument, it is not necessary to say anything more than ..... (1) this reference relates to the propriety of an order under s. 23-a of the income-tax act 1922 and a direction given by the tribunal under s. 34(3) of the same act to re-assess the shareholders as a consequence of s. 23-a proceedings.(2) the asseseee was originally a private ..... was allowed freely among the members of the public. but, as we said, in view of clause 13 and of the particulars submitted by the income-tax officer, the tribunal considered that the assessee failed to show that it was a company in which the public were substantially interested. apparently, anticipating that ..... a common feature found in the articles of what are undoubtedly public limited companies in which the public are substantially interested, did not justify the income-tax officer's finding that transfer of shares was here severely restricted, and, therefore, the shares of the assessee company were to in fact freely ..... limited company incorporated in july 1942, but converted into a public limited company on 25-8-1948. for the assessment year 1954-55, for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1953, the income-tax .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1965 (HC)

R. Chinnaswami Naidu and Sons and ors. Vs. First Income-tax Officer, C ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-03-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad136; [1966]61ITR400(Mad)

..... question of law involving jurisdiction. the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is conferred, under s. 34 of the income-tax act. it is not the contention for the petitioners that the income-tax officer is not competent in this case to act under that section. the income-tax officer having jurisdiction is, therefore, also competent to interpret the particular section, and it cannot be said that ..... of palpable injustice to the assessee to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the act.", was concerned with a petition for a writ ofprohibition restraining the income-tax officer from taking any action pursuant to a notice issued under s. 34 of the income-tax act. the contention for the assessee was that the notice was with our jurisdiction and the exercise ..... ofassessment, notice was issued against the assessee under s. 46(1)(a) of the saurashtra income-tax ordinance, 1949, which corresponds to s. 34(1)(a) of the indian income-tax act. the assessee made a return stating that the amounts in question there did not represent his income at all. the assessee preferred an appeal, with the result that the matter, was remitted ..... to the income-tax officer. thereafter, the assessee was required to appear before the income-tax officer and products his evidence. instead of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1965 (HC)

K.R. Kothandaraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-24-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad143

..... agreement, he must be regarded as a salaried employee and, the remuneration credited to him for the nine months was salary chargeable to tax under section 7 of the income-tax act, 1922. it further held that as the resolution of the company was passed long after the accounting year of the assessee it could ..... whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of rs. 11,250 is assessable under section 7 of the income-tax act?'.having regard to the frame of the question we are not called upon to answer whether the remuneration for the nine months would fall within ..... to stop or deny payment of this remuneration. it is no doubt true as held in commissioner of income-tax, kerala v. l.w. russel : [1964]53itr91(sc) ; the word 'allowed' in section 7 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 presupposes a vested right. but the agreement certainly conferred on the assessee a right at the ..... the managing agent of the company and as its sole selling agent should be assessed under s. 7 of the indian income-tax act but the revenue would not admit it and charged the income under s. 10. the allahabad high court on a reference upheld the view of the revenue and pointed out that ..... into the with the company.(2) our attention is however invited by learned counsel for the assessee to inderchand hari ram v. commissioner of income-tax : [1952]22itr108(all) , and commissioner of income-tax, madras v. thiagaraja chetty & co. : [1954]1scr258 : which, as we think are of no assistance to him they are both .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 1965 (HC)

S.T. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, Kultipirai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-20-1965

Reported in : AIR1967Mad224

..... veeraswami, j. (1) the cases of the two assessees are consolidated in this reference under section 66 (2) of the income-tax act 1922. the reference turns on the character of the receipt by each of them of a sum of rs. 19672, which represents the gain ..... that was how the tribunal also was inclined to view it in a portion of its order. but, we do not find from the orders of the income-tax officer or the appellate authority or the tribunal that they regarded the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. in fact, in the statement of ..... circumstances of the case, there was no material to support the finding of the tribunal that the sum of rs. 19675 constituted a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax?'a preshyterian church of england in malaya had a 999 years lease from the sultan of johore baru in thomboi estate and from the church. chidambaram chettiar ..... government of malaya took over the estate and paid compensation therefor, and the amount that was included in the chargeable income of each of the assessees was derived from the compensation so paid.(2) the income-tax officer considered that this asset was never considered as an investment, but was treated from 1940 as part of the ..... view, as we already indicated, that there is no material to warrant the conclusion that the asset was a stock-in-trade and the income in question is chargeable to tax as a revenue receipt. we are confirmed in that view by the further fact that though the leasehold interest was acquired in 1940, it .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //