Mumbai Court March 1935 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom412; (1935)37BOMLR692; 159Ind.Cas.424; [1935]3ITR367(Bom)
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the first question Raised is,Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the income received by right of survivorship by the sole surviving male member of a Hindu undivided family can be taxed in the hands of such male member as his own individual income, or it should be taxed; as the income of a Hindu undivided family, for the purposes of assessment to super-tax, under section 55 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The facts are that there was a joint Hindu family consisting of a father and his wife and a son and his wife, the son being the present assessee. The father died in 1929 before the year of assessment, so the joint Hindu family then consisted of the son, his mother and his wife, and the question raised by the Commissioner appears to me to admit the existence of a joint Hindu family. Of such existence, I think, there can be no question. ...
Tag this Judgment!Adambhai Salemahomed Vs. Haji Allarakhia Haji Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom417; (1935)37BOMLR686; 159Ind.Cas.193
Murphy, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decision of the First Glass Subordinate Judge at Nadiad with appellate powers dismissing the appeal against the decree of the Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the will executed by one Valibhai Salemahomed on April 11, 1923, was void and illegal, and for possession of the plaintiff's share according to Muhammadan law as an heir of Valibhai whose brother he was Valibhai Salemahomed died on May 5, 1923, and his will provided for the distribution of his estate among his relatives through the medium of trustees appointed under the document. The principal point we have to decide is whether the deceased Valibhai Salemahomed was governed by the Hindu or the Muhammadan law, the answer depending on whether he was a Halai or a Cutchi Memon, or, in the alternative, a Memon governed by the ordinary Muhammadan law of inheritance. Both the Courts below have found that he was a Memon ; but the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chunilal B. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom423; (1935)37BOMLR753; 159Ind.Cas.413
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it raises a question of considerable importance, and not, I think, easy to answer.2. The facts out of which the question arises are not in dispute. The assessee carries on business in Bombay as a broker in cotton, silver and other commodities, and he also as a regular business enters into contracts on his own behalf for the sale and purchase of such commodities with persons in British India and also with persons outside British India, particularly in New York and Liverpool; which are the places with which we have to deal on this reference,, During the year of assessment, which is the year terminating on March 31, 1934, the assessee made a profit of Rs, 11,54,830 from the business of buying and selling commodities outside British India, and the question is whether he r is liable to be assessed in respect of this sum.3. The actual questions ra...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Hydro-electric Agencies, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: [1936]4ITR92(Bom)
BEAUMONT C.J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 (2) in which he raises two questions. The fact giving rise to the questions are simple. By an agreement made on the 24th September, 1919 Tata Sons Ltd., were appointed Agent of or the Tata Power Co. Ltd. for 41 years on a commission of 10 per cent. profits plus an office allowance and there was power to assign the agreement and to assign any part of the commission. By an agreement of the 15th October, 1926 Tata sons Ltd., agreed to pay E. F. Dinshaw, Ltd. two annas in the rupees out of the commission. Which they received under the 1919 agreement, and four days later, that is on the 19th October, 1926, Tata Sons, Ltd., entered into similar agreement with one Tilden Smith. On the 21st November, 1929 Tata Sons Ltd., assigned their rights under the 1919 agreement to the present assessee subject to the agreement with F. E. Dinshaw, Ltd. and Tilden Smith. We are told that subsequently Tata Power Ltd., ente...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand Madhavji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR462(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C. J. - In this case the Commissioner of Income Tax has referred two questions for our decision under Section 66(2) of the Indian income Tax Act or any other section thereof under which a deduction could be allowed from the income of the firm liable to the tax, in respect, of the sums of money referred to in paragraph 2 above aggregating in all to Rs. 55,694, on account of moneys due from its former partners.' The facts are that the year of assessment is the year 1932-33, that is the year expiring on the 31st March, 1933, and the 'previous year', as that expression is defined in Section 2 Clause (11) is the Samwat year 1987. During the year of assessment and during the previous year there were two partners in the assessee firm. But it appears that in former times there were four other partners. One of them retired in the Samwat year 1982, one of them at the end of Samwat year 1983, and two of them at the end of Samwat year 1984, and on their retirements they owed large sums o...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Radio and Cable Communications Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1935
Reported in: [1936]4ITR90(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act which raises a question 'whether the half share of the net profits payable by the assessee company under Clause 5 of the agreement dated the 19th day of February 1935, viz., Rs. 3,35,861 is a proper deduction to be allowed for the purpose of arriving at the amount on which this company should be assessed for the purposes of income-tax and super tax within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (ix).The sum in question is payable under the agreement referred to by the Commissioner and it is expressed to be a payment of half share of the net profits. The agreement is rather a long and complicated one made between the Imperial and International Communications, Ltd., which is an English company, and the assessee company. The arrangement is that the assessee company is to take over, putting it shortly, the Indian business of the English company, and to take over all plant, machi...
Tag this Judgment!Harkisandas Dharamsey Vs. Dwarkadas Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom94; (1935)37BOMLR913
Blackwell, J.1. This is a vendor and purchaser summons raising a question whether the defendants have made out a marketable title to certain leasehold property, which by an agreement in writing dated July 21, 1934, the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendants and one Tulsidas Valji.2. The title begins in the year 1901 with a mortgage, exhibit A, which was executed by Omar Pir Mahomed, the then owner, on December 21, 1901, in favour of Dossibai Nowroji Gazdar. At the foot of the witness clause the mortgage was signed by Umar Pir Mahomed in the presence of one attesting witness only, and the point is taken that by reason of that fact it is not a valid mortgage. Below that signature and attestation appears a receipt clause whereby the mortgagor on the very same day on which he signed the document admitted the receipt of Rs. 20,000, signing his name below the words ' I say received ', and that was witnessed by two persons, one of whom Mr. Rustomji Fardunji Mulla had previously atte...
Tag this Judgment!The Provident Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom319; (1935)37BOMLR465; 157Ind.Cas.650
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a motion under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. asking the Court to direct the Land Acquisition Officer in cases Nos. T. 30-and T. 31 to refer the question as to the amount of compensation allowed to the High Court pursuant to the application dated August 29, 1934. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer on August 27, 1934, made an award in these cases allowing compensation of Rs. 17,000 odd. The Land Acquisition Officer did not give and was not bound to give a reasoned judgment, but the present applicant applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for a statement of the reasons on which the award was based, and that information was refused. Thereupon on August 29, that is, two days after the award had been made, the applicant wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer through his attorneys acknowledging the receipt of the award and saying-Our clients do not accept the award and request that the question of the amount of compensation be referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Tarakdas Acharjee Choudhury Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR638
Shadi Lal, J.1. The dispute in this consolidated appeal relates to the ownership of large tracts of land formed by the recession of the river Padma, which Is the name given to the branch of the Ganges flowing between the Dacca arid the Faridpur districts of Bengal. The plaintiff-appellants are admittedly co-sharers in estate No. 4002 of the Faridpur Collectorate, other-wise known as Taluk Kunwar Bishvanath, which comprises, 'inter alia, three villages, namely, Mauza Harirampur, Mai Parchar and Bhati Bishvanathpur (the villages to be described hereinafter shortly as Mauza Harirampur). It is common ground that in 1793 the estate was permanently settled with the predecessors-in-title of the appellants, and the question, which their Lordships have to determine, is whether the lands in dispute formed part of Mauza Harirampur at the time of the permanent settlement.2. The river Ganges, in its course through the district of Dacca and the neigh- bouring districts, frequently changes its channe...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Ghanshamdas Vs. Mohideen Abdul Gafoor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Bom401; (1935)37BOMLR654; 158Ind.Cas.701
Tyabji, J.1. In this suit defendant No. 2 and his sons defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are sued on the footing that the father and the sons are members of a firm and are liable as partners for the transactions entered into by one or the other of them on behalf of the firm. 2. On Mr. Bhagvati's opening I pointed out the difficulty of his being able to make out a case on this basis, and of the probability that the suit was misconceived, being framed on the assumption that the father and sons stood in a position similar to that of members of a joint Hindu family.3. A Hindu may carry on business with property to which for the time he is entitled solely or as a coparcener. If sons are born to him, the sons may by birth acquire an interest in the partnership property. The position then would be anomalous in that the partnership property would become subject to the rights of persons who are not partners and who have come into existence after the firm has commenced to do business. The notion of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »