Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: chennai Year: 1960 Page 2 of about 18 results (0.049 seconds)

Mar 04 1960 (HC)

M.K. Krishnamurthy, Ex-proprietor, Photo Litho Press, Madras 1 Vs. Ind ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-04-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad285; [1961(2)FLR94]; (1960)IILLJ430Mad; (1960)IILLJ430Mad

..... . v. labour appellate tribunal of india, 1954 ii l.l.j. 424, wherein a limited company took over the business previously run by a partnership concern as a running business and the question was whether the limited company was liable to pay bonus even tor the period before it took over the ..... discontinuance of business by the owner that would not amount to an industrial dispute as defined in the industrial disputes act.this is made clear by the decision of a bench of this court in the indian metal and metallurgical corporation v. industrial tribunal, madras : (1952)illj364mad to which one of us was a ..... of moveables can take place by delivery alone without any formal sale deed. we are thus satisfied that the grounds upon which the tribunal refused to act upon this letter are without any substance.4. in refusing to interfere with this conclusion of the tribunal, rajagopalan j. took the view that the ..... document does not specify by whom it was executed. the letter is signed by the appellant and the heading of the letter shows that he was acting in his capacity as proprietor of the photo litho press, the further criticism of the tribunal that this document does not indicate when, the sale ..... about his failure to bring about conciliation. thereupon the government of madras in exercise of their powers under section 10(1)(c) of the industrial disputes act, xiv of 1947, referred the dispute on 7-7-1953 to the industrial tribunal, madras, for adjudication. in the order of reference the dispute was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1960 (HC)

V. S. P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-01-1960

Reported in : [1961]42ITR278(Mad)

..... property had been taken that excess was treated as the trading profit of the money-lending business. independent of such acquisitions of immovable property the assessee purchased in 1941, in partnership with one subramania pillai a tea estate known as cattaratenne estate. the assessee had a two-thirds share, and subramania pillai had the remaining one-third. the purchase price was ..... that finding, it explained in paragraph 6 of the statement of the case it submitted when referring the question for determination of this court under section 66(2) of the act. the tribunal stated :'it [tribunal] therefore came to the conclusion that the income arose in its business of purchase and sale of estates and was not merely an adventure in ..... commissioner and the tribunal failed and the assessment was confirmed.under the directions of this court, the tribunal referred the following question under section 66(2) of the income-tax act :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 1,10,637 being the profit realised by the assessee on the sale of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1960 (HC)

Bharani Pictures Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1960

Reported in : [1961]43ITR474(Mad)

..... another picture, rathnamala. it had also engaged artists for the production of pulandiran. it was only during the course of its production that it entered into partnership with balaji pictures. such contracts are but a normal feature in the business relating to a film production; it facilitates the coming in of the necessary ..... the basis of the distinction is clearly laid down in commissioner of income-tax v. rai bahadur jairam valji.a case like the present, where the partnership is not the structure of the profit-earning apparatus of this assessee, but rather a venture for the purpose of carrying on its existing business of ..... on a true construction of the agreement dated august 25, 1948, the amount of rs. 37,500 paid to the assessee of it rights in the partnership firm with the balaji pictures. it is contended that an interest in a joint venture was property and that as the venture itself was the profit-earning ..... the principal actress in the proposed film. soon thereafter, the assessee took a partner, masers, balaji pictures, madras, for the venture. the terms of the partnership agreement were reduced to the form of a document on july 26, 1946. under that agreement, the cost of production of the picture and collections therefrom were ..... ramachandra iyer j. - the following question were referred to us under section 66(2) of the indian income-tax act :'1. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in including the entire amount of rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1960 (HC)

Seshasayee Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-1960

Reported in : [1961]42ITR568(Mad)

..... case of acquiring and selling any managing agency in return for the receipt of rs. 41,000 could arise of consideration.that the licence which the partnership, of which the assessee company was a member, was a valuable asset and a capital asset in its hands could admit of no doubt. that ..... accepted the contention of the assessee, that in that firm the active partner was ravindra mulraj.there was certainly no evidence to indicate that either the partnership or the assessee company did any business in promoting companies or in obtaining and selling licences for manufacture of products. the tribunal observed in its order ..... the license was surrendered to another group, in which no doubt dharmsey mulraj khatau still figured, and in exchange for the license that was traded in the partnership, got a sum of rs. 1 lakh. ravindra mulraj was in charge of these negotiations. a sum of rs. 18,000 had been expended, and ..... in the negative, whether it is assessable under the head business under section 10 or under the head capital gains under section 12b of the indian income-tax act ?'with reference to the first question, the facts found were that mr. raman who was one of the directors of the assessee firm was deputed ..... of the foreign tour of one of the directors is allowable as a proper deduction from the assessable profits under section 10(2)(xv) of the indian income-tax act ?'2. (a) whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 41,000 received by the assessee company is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1960 (HC)

G. Lakshmi Rajyam Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-1960

Reported in : (1960)2MLJ276

..... to be of revenue nature.17. it was then contended that the gift made by ranganatha das who was not an employer, the employer being the partnership firm, would be more analogous to the case of an admirer making a present under an impulse of the moment by way of appreciation. the ..... in recognition of which the gift was made, had long ago ceased and had been paid for, and (3) that the assessee was employed by the partnership: ranganatha dass was not by himself the employer or the paymaster, and any payment by him could not partake the character of any remuneration for services.10. ..... upheld on appeal by the appellate assistant commissioner, and also by the appellate tribunal. the following question has been referred under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act.whether the sums of rs. 63,258 and rs. 10,362 received by the assessee during the years ended 31st march, 1952 and 31st march, ..... 1953, respectively, constitute income assessable under the indian income-tax act.3. the principal point for consideration is the nature and character of the receipt of the aforesaid sums by the assessee. if it were held ..... there was a loss in the picture. the agreement to pay a share in the future realisations from the picture was purely a gratuitous and voluntary act on the part of ranganatha das. two months later, he married the assessee. that circumstance, however, is mentioned only to be dismissed as having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1960 (HC)

C. Lakshmi Rajyam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-21-1960

Reported in : [1960]40ITR340(Mad)

..... held to be of revenue nature.it was then contended that the gift made by ranganatha dass who was not an employer, the employer being the partnership firm, would be more analogous to the case of an admirer making a present under an impulse of the moment by way of appreciation. the ..... in recognition of which the gift was made, had long ago ceased and had been paid for, and (3) that the assessee was employed by the partnership : ranganatha dass was not by himself the employer or the paymaster, and any payment by him could not partake the character of any remuneration for services.in ..... upheld on appeal by the appellate assistant commissioner, and also by the appellate tribunal. the following question has been referred under section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act :'whether the sum of rs. 63,258 and rs. 10,362 received by the assessee during the years ended march 31, 1952, and march 31 ..... , 1953, respectively constitute income assessable under the indian income-tax act.'the principal point for consideration is the nature and character of the receipt of the aforesaid sums by the assessee. if it were held that these ..... there was a loss in the picture. the agreement to pay a share in the future realisations from the picture was purely a gratuitous and voluntary act on the part of ranganatha dass. two months later, he married the assessee. that circumstance, however, is mentioned only to be dismissed as having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1960 (HC)

Gnanam and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-28-1960

Reported in : [1961]43ITR485(Mad)

..... would be applicable if it were assessed on him personally, makes no provision for any deduction form that share in respect of any part of the partnership profits having arisen outside british india. they proceeded to point out the difficulties that would be encountered in determining what part of the income of the ..... bombay :'1. whether the assessment of the share income of the non-resident partner under the second proviso to section 23(5)(a) of the indian income-tax act in the hands of the assessee firm is justified in law ?2. whether the levy of tax at the maximum rate is correct ?'the facts ..... of a person not resident or not ordinarily resident in british india would not be part of his total income within the meaning of the income-tax act. apart from these difficulties, such a contention, in the view of their lordships, would involve reading into the section things which are not there, which ..... the non-residents share of the firms income in assessable and does not render the determination of the taxable income subject to the other provisions of the act. that being so, the department is entitled to consider his share in the firm income as the total income for the purpose of levy of tax ..... firm under the second proviso to section 23(5)(a). in making these assessments, he calculated the tax payable by the application of section 17 of the act, which provides for the levy of the tax at the maximum rate. the assessee, the firm, appealed to the assistant commissioner of income-tax and to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1960 (HC)

M.K. Sivagaminatha Pillai Vs. Nataraja Pillai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-12-1960

Reported in : AIR1961Mad385; (1961)2MLJ1

..... and his mother kuppammal were trading as partners under the name and style of 'm.k. sivagaminathan' in princess street, bombay. defendants 1 and 2 were carrying on business in partnership in colombo under the name and style of 'jayalakshmi and co.' defendants 1 and 2 borrowed from the plaintiff several sums under hundis drawn on the defendants and made, payable ..... thirty days after sight to the order of the indian overseas bank ltd, colombo. defendants 1 and 2 accepted to pay the amount due under those hundis but failed to pay when they were presented to them on the due ..... 705. the first defendant had filed an affidavit praying for leave to appear and defend the action unconditionally.in that statement he denied that he was carrying on business in partnership with the second defendant and contended that he was not aware whether the bills were duly accepted and that there was no consideration for acceptance of the bills. the leave .....

Tag this Judgment!


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