Mumbai Court October 1935 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Currimbhoy Ebrahim and Sons Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR139
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal arises out of an assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer of A. Ward, Bombay, on August 7, 1931, against the respondent company Messrs. Currimbhoy Ebrahim and Sons, Limited, as agents of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad. The order was made in respect of income-tax for the year of assessment 1931-1932, but was based upon the accounting period being the year 1930-31. Two items only were included in the order, first, the sum of Rs. 27,960 being income-tax claimed to be due from the Nizam under the head ' property ' in respect of house property in Bombay of which he is the owner; secondly, a sum of Rs. 3,15,214 being the amount received in the year of account by the Nizam from the respondent company as interest due upon a loan of Rs. 50,00,000 made by the Nizam to the respondent company upon the terms of a written instrument dated August 16, 1929. The latter claim was laid under the heading ' Other Sources ' as defined by Section 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Somasekhara Royal Vs. Raja Sugutur Mahadeva Royal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR317
Thankerton, J.1. In the present appeal the appellants are members of the family of the Panganur Zamindar. On his death during this suit they have been substituted for him and now represent the impartible estate. They are defendants in a suit brought by respondent No. 1, who is a member of the same family being the third son of a predecessor in the ownership of the impartible estate. He is seeking to recover certain allowances or sums, in the first place, in the form of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 a month, and, secondly, at the rate of Rs. 125 a month in lieu of certain lands which were given to him, whether for maintenance or not, under the will of his father. The only ground of defence which is raised by this appeal is to the effect that in the year 1907 the plaintiff, the respondent, was adopted by a lady in the Bombay Presidency, both parties being Lingayats. The Panganur family are resident in the Madras Presidency and the ground of defence is that having, been adopted by th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Buckingham and Carnatic Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR133
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-Tax from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated May 2, 1934, whereby the High Court, upon the hearing of a case referred to it by the appellant under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), answered certain questions of law raised thereby adversely to the contentions of the appellant.2. The questions of law referred to the High Court arose in the course of the assessment of the profits and gains of the business of the respondent company for the tax year beginning on April 1, 1931.3. The main question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the allowance to be made to the respondent company in respect of depreciation of buildings and machinery used by them for the purposes of their business should be calculated by reference to the cost thereof to the respondent company or by reference to the original cost thereof to certain companies from which such ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shapurji Sorabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR106
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Aden of offences under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them were' employees of the Aden Settlement Executive Committee, No. 1 Shapurji Sorabji being the Head Accountant and No. 2 Jacob David the accounts -clerk. One of the functions of this body is to supply water to the public on payment. This is done for the most part by the sale of water tickets issued in books of sixteen for Rs. 9 per book. The price was formerly Rs. 12. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for the sale of these books and for paying the money received into the bank. No. 1 had the books in his charge and issued them as required. No. 2 usually sold them except on Saturdays when No. 1 himself did so. No. 2 is a Jew and did not attend office on that day. From February 1, to June 1, 1934, No. 2 was on leave and the witness Saleh Saleh A. Khalifa did his work for him. Particulars of the books sold, includin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Rahiman Akramdin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom193; (1936)38BOMLR153
Tyabji, J. 1. It has been submitted by the Clerk of the Crown for consideration whether the sentences passed by me on accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in accordance with law.2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, with two other persons, were tried before me and a jury, under five charges : (l) the first charge was of a criminal conspiracy to print and forge railway tickets, to use them as genuine and to cheat intending passengers and the railway company (s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code). The other four charges were charges of having committed offences in pursuance of the said conspiracy, viz., (2) of forging railway tickets ( Sections 467, 34), (3) f)i forging the tickets knowing that they would be used for the purpose of cheating ( Sections 468, 34), (4) of dishonestly using the tickets as genuine (ss, 467, 471, 34), and (5), of cheating by fraudulent and dishonest representations of having purchased the tickets and inducements, requests for payment etc., connected with or following such representations ...
Tag this Judgment!Shapurji Sorabji and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.399
Broomfield, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Aden of offences under Sections 409, 403, 420, 467, and 471 Penal, Code. Both of them were employees of the Aden Settlement Executive Committee, No. 1 Snapurji Sorabji being the Head Accountant and No. 2, Jacob David, the accounts clerk. One of the functions of this body is to supply water to the public on payment. This is done for the most pare by the sale of water tickets issued in books of 16 for Rs. 9 per book. The price was formerly Rs. 12. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for the sale of these books and for paying the money received into the bank. No. 1 had the books in his charge and issued them as required. No. 2 usually sold them except on Saturdays when No. 1 himself did so. No. 2 is a Jew and did not attend office on that day. From February 1, to June 1, 1934, No. 2 was on leave and the witness Saleh Saleh A. Khalifa did his work for him. Particulars of the books sold, including the serial numb...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogilal Hargovandas Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1935
Reported in: [1937]5ITR555(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question he raises is 'Whether in view of the provisions of Sec. 26(2) to the Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Officer acted correctly in not taking into account the loss in the cigarette business during the period January 1 to August 31, 1933, on the ground that at the time of assessment the assessee was not carrying on that business, having transferred it to the Zenith Tobacco Co., Ltd., which carried it on from September 1, 1933.'The facts giving rise to the question are these : The year of assessment is the year 1934-35, and previous year, as defined by Sec. 2, sub-section (11), is the year ending December 31, 1933. The assessee carried on certain business, and had income from other sources. Apart from his normal business he started at the beginning of the year 1933, the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes, which he carried on under the name of 'The Z...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abubaker Abdul Rehman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR450; 163Ind.Cas.351
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in which the Commissioner raises this question : ' In view of the provisions of Section 16 read with Section 14(2) (b) of the Act, has the Income-tax Officer correctly included in the computation under Section 16 of the Act, of the total income of the assessee for the purposes of his 1932-33 assessment, his share of Rs. 1,14,812 in the income of the Imperial Movietone Company for the calendar year 1931 ' The reason for raising that question requires some explanation.2. The assessee is a gentleman named Abubaker Abdul Rehman, and the year of assessment is the year 1932-33, that is, the year ending March 31, 1933. The assessee is a partner in two different firms, one Abubaker Abdul Rehman & Co., and the other the Imperial Movietone Company. He also has certain property which produces income, apart from his interest in the firms. The accounts of the assessee and of the firm of Abubaker A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Abubaker Abdul Rahman.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom225; [1936]4ITR233(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (2), Income Tax Act, 1922, in which the Commissioner raises this question :-In view of the provisions of Section 16 read with Section 14 (b) of the Act has the Income Tax Officer correctly included in the computation under Section 16 of the Act, of the total income of the assessee for the purposes of his 1932-33 assessment his share of Rs. 1,14,812 in the income of the Imperial Movietone Co., for the calendar year 1931.The reason for raising that question requires some explanation.The assessee in a gentleman named Abubaker Abdul Rahman, and the year of assessment is the year 1932-33, that is the year ending 31st March, 1933. The assessee is a partner in two different firms, one, Abubaker Abdul Rahman & Co., and the other the Imperial Movietone Co. He also has certain property which produces income, apart from his interest in the firms. The accounts of the assessee and of the firm of Abubaker Abdul Rahman & Co., are made up to Diwali...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Srimutty Parijat Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR125
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is in appeal from an order dated April 24, 1933, and made by the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming an order made by a Judge of that Court on March 17, 1931.2. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows. One Pasupati Mukherjee, a resident of Calcutta, died on May 9,1919 possessed of considerable property, having made a last will and testament whereby he appointed the Administrator General of Bengal as his executor. By the said will' after making specific bequests and provisions for certain annuities and for the marriage of his daughter, it was provided that-The residual estate shall be divided among the children of my late brother, when all of them shall have attained majority. Till then it shall be in the hands of the executor. Half of my estate shall be divided equally among the sons of my late lamented elder brother and the remaining half shall be divided among my children i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »