Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1916 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.172 seconds)

Oct 18 1916 (PC)

Mrs. Annie Besant Vs. the Government of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1916

Reported in : 37Ind.Cas.525

..... section 124a, indian penal code. strachey, j., however, says:a man may criticise or comment upon any measure or act of the government, whether legislative or executive, and freely express opinion upon it. he may discuss the income tax act, the epidemic diseases act, or any military expedition, or the suppression of plague ok famine, or the administration of justice. he may express the ..... the writer begins by referring to the well-known fact that in india we live hemmed in on all sides by repressive measures. the press act, the seditious meetings act, the official secrets act, the defence of india act, not to mention several despotic measures of early days---potential of mischief and capable of retarding democratic progress---are all there in the bands of ..... the vesting of such unlimited power in the executive government is undoubtedly a serious encroachment on the freedom which the press in india enjoyed before the passing of the act.12. the act, as is well known, was passed in order to counteract the manifold ingenious devices adopted by the anarchists of bengal for carrying out their propaganda. how far it ..... by them or him respectively.68. (29) 'local government' shall mean the person authorised by law to administer executive government in the part of british india in which the act or regulation containing the expression operates, and shall include a chief commissioner.69. these definitions (which it may be remarked are substantially identical with those given in sections 16 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1916 (PC)

J. Krishna Rao Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-29-1916

Reported in : (1917)32MLJ99

ayling, j.1. in my opinion the three phrases 'kept', 'let out for hire' and 'used' in section 150 of the madras city municipal act are employed distinctively, and the word 'kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. if the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possession within the scope of section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, section 151(f).2. i can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept' within the meaning of section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. i would set aside the order of the magistrates cancelling the tax and ordering refund.napier, j.4. i agree. three points are argued. first that a car under repair is not a vehicle. i cannot take this argument seriously. second that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire', and private persons who do not use for 30 days are not taxable. section 150(f) clearly negatives this argument. thirdly, that as the owner had not the car in his possession he was not 'keeping'. the section does not require the car to be in the possession of the owner. any vehicle that is under some one's control is undoubtedly kept.5. it has not been argued that if it was kept the owner need not pay and the argument would be impossible as long as the owner had control. vide section 150(2) of the madras city municipal act. the assessment by the corporation is correct.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1916 (PC)

J. Krishna Row Vs. the President Municipal Corporation

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-29-1916

Reported in : (1917)ILR40Mad545

ayling, j.1. in my opinion the three phrases 'kept,' 'let out for hire' and 'used' in section 150 of the madras city municipal act are employed distinctively, and the word 'kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire.' if the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, section 151(f).2. i can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept' within the meaning of section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. i would set aside the order of the magistrates cancelling the tax and ordering refund.napier, j. 4. i agree. three points are argued. first, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. i cannot take this argument seriously. second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire,' and private persons who do not use for thirty days are not taxable. section 151(f) clearly negatives this argument. thirdly, that as the owner had not the car in his possession, he was not 'keeping.' the section does not require the car to be in the possession of the owner. any vehicle that is under some one's control is undoubtedly kept.5. it has not been argued that if it was kept the owner need not pay and the argument would be impossible as long as the owner had control--vide section 150(2) of the madras city municipal act. the assessment by the corporation is correct.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1916 (PC)

Mr. J. Krishna Row Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-29-1916

Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.581

william ayling, j.1. in my opinion the three phrases kept', let out for hire' and used' in section 150 of the madras city municipal act are employed distinctively; and the word kept' is not qualified by the words 'for hire'. if the mere possession of a car which is never used does not bring the possessor within the scope of section 150, it is difficult to imagine what is the object of the exemption clause, section 151(f).2. i can see no ground for holding that a car ceases to be 'kept,' within the meaning of section 150, because it is under repair and for that reason unfit for immediate use.3. i would set aside the order of the magistrate, cancelling the tax and ordering refund.napier, j.4. i agree.5. three points are argued. first, that a car under repair is not a vehicle. i cannot take this argument seriously. second, that the word 'kept' must be read with the words 'for hire' and private persons who do not use for 30 days are not taxable. section 151(f) clearly negatives this argument. thirdly, that as the owner had not the car in his possession, he was not 'keeping it.' the section does not require the car to be in the possession of the owner. any vehicle that is under some one's control is undoubtedly kept.6. it has not been argued that if it was kept the owner need not pay and the argument would be impossible as long as the owner had, control. vide section 150(2) of the madras municipal act. the assessment by the corporation is correct.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 1916 (PC)

R.M.P.S. Muthiah Chetti and ors. Vs. M.A.R.M. Periannan Chetti and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-29-1916

Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.551

..... , and there was also occasional interference in circumstances, which are not fully proved, by individual nagarathars other than the four kariakars, who not only acted, but also in some instances styled themselves as kariakars and hakdars. in some instances, as pointed out by the subordinate judge, these individuals were ..... in which he states that the trustees for the time being were consulting with the leading members of the community in important matters and were acting in accordance with the wishes of the community expressed at the general meeting of the caste during the keeranipatty festival or on other occasions. ..... its endowments. he finds accordingly (paragraph 100) that they are not trustees under the right claimed by them but have been tacitly allowed to act as trustees, being the representatives of the families to which the trustees first appointed by the nagarathars to manage the affairs of the temple belonged. ..... from time to time by one member of each family, generally the eldest. it is undoubted that four kariakars, one for each family, have acted ever since 1864, the date of the inam settlement, and that at that time they were recognized by the inam commissioner as trustees; and exhibit ..... had been allowed to manage on his behalf. in the present case, the income of the temple was mainly derived from inams or state grants until the chetties in 1877 levied money among themselves by a poll-tax and embarked it in a money-lending business in which large profits were realised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1916 (PC)

The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1916

Reported in : (1916)31MLJ120

..... ) and 4 (h) it seems to us that the accruing to government by the property being at their disposal is only to secure to the government the enjoyment of the income during the continuance of the attachment. (see also the case of bishonath sircar (1865) 8 w.r.cr. rule 63. there are no words in section 88 or 89 vesting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1916 (PC)

Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Kasturiranga Ayyangar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-16-1916

Reported in : (1917)ILR40Mad212

..... them are applicable to the present case. mr. rangachariar's appeal to hoary antiquity does not disturb me. if my conclusion is correct that the income belongs to the temple, it would be a breach of trust on the part of those responsible for the management to consent to its permanent alienation ..... chandra ray i.l.r. (1908) calc. 691 it follows from these two positions that a trustee has no right to part with temple-income permanently. benefit to the institution and justifiable necessity are the criteria to be applied in dealing with alienation of temple property.10. the exact point which ..... character, subject to periodical re-adjustment with reference to the exigencies of the time.8. mr. rangachariar strenuously contended that a permanent allotment of the income of the deity is not invalid. he instanced the various inams which have been granted to archakas and others, and argued that those endowments were ..... remuneration for the necessary services rendered by the servants of the temple. in my opinion, exhibits ii to v evidence only such an arrangement. the income from the offerings was not very large in those days, and the collector thought it right that the archakas should be in receipt of it to ..... documents rightly when he said that the collector did not assign the entire offerings to the archakas. if the income appertained to the archakas, there can be no question that the committee acted wisely in securing a fraction of it to the deity. if it belonged to the deity, is the alienation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1916 (PC)

Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal, Raju Bahadur Varu and Vs. Uddagiri Papa N ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-1916

Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.208

..... . 25,000 odd, the said one hundred villages with the hamlets, tanks, kasams, channels, fruit trees, gardens, forests, forest poramboke, road-cess, etc., income, mountain and mountain leases are secured. then it says that ninety-two villages of the one hundred villages are secured without possession, while the remaining eight villages (including ..... redeem after the zemindar's death, not on any family custom, but on the language of the sanad', the decrees of the courts and the acts of the legislature. a part of the letter is taken up with the contention that the right of resumption is vested in the zemindar and not ..... deoraj kuari 10 a.p 272 on the ground of a territorial custom. that plea failed and in consequence the legislature intervened with the impartible estates act, ii of 1904. now the attempt is renewed on the basis of the family custom pleaded here based on the language used by their lordships ..... a petty chieftain who gradually improved his position, so his origin is different to that of other classes of zemindars who were in many cases mere tax-collectors for the ruling power. in the year 1792 the east india company took over the control of the dominions of the poligars of venkatagiri, ..... under circumstances which would entitle the managing member of a joint family to do so, the enactment of section 4 (1) of the impartible estates act was superfluous so far as this estate was concerned. that the law of impartibility depends on the family custom of succession and not on the nature .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1916 (PC)

Abdul Majeeth Khan Sahib Vs. C. Krishnamachariar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-21-1916

Reported in : (1917)32MLJ195

..... law dies after the death of the propositus his share descends on his own heirs and does not lapse to the i general estate. bach heir is entitled to the income that has accrued since the testator's death in proportion to his share and s he can transfer his share by sale or gift subject, it may be, as to ..... form the subject-matter of reference, the muhammadan law is clear that one of the heirs of a deceased person is not competent to bind the other heirs by his acts.spencer, j.13. i agree with the judgment of mr. justice abdur rahim just now pronounced.srinivasa aiyangar, j.14. i agree. in the absence of any right in one ..... , the same proposition is laid down under the heading of 'claims'. nowhere have i found any general statement that, apart from representation in suits, one heir is entitled by his acts to bind the shares of the others. the dictum to the contrary, therefore, in pathummabi v. vittil ummachabi i.l.r. (1902) m. 734, and the decision in hasan ali ..... it is laid down,' in this species of partnership, (i.e., the rights of two persona inheriting one property) therefore, it is not lawful for one partner to perform any act with respect to the other's share, without his permission each being as a stranger with respect to the other's share. it is however, lawful for either partner (i .....

Tag this Judgment!


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