Skip to content

Mumbai Court April 1935 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Apr 01 1935

The Municipality of Dhulia Vs. the New Pratap Spinning, Weaving and Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1935

Reported in: AIR1935Bom415; (1935)37BOMLR703; 158Ind.Cas.703

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class ^Subordinate Judge of Dhulia, and it raises a very short point. The plaintiffs, who are a limited company, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 5,187-15-0 as a refund of the amount charged upon them by the defendant Dhulia Municipality for terminal tax. The Judge held that the plaintiffs were not liable to tax, but as to a large part of the claim it was held that that was barred by limitation, and his order was that the plaintiffs do recover from the defendant Municipality Rs. 382-14-6, and from that decision there is this appeal.2. The terminal tax is leviable under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (Bom. XVIII of 1925), and the rules applicable thereunder. The question depends on the construction of Rule 5. Rule 3 provides that, subject to the exemptions and the provisions thereinafter specified, a terminal tax shall be payable on all goods, imported within the municipal limits, of the description mentioned in co...


Apr 01 1935

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Vaijnath Manohar

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1935

Reported in: AIR1935Bom410; (1935)37BOMLR697; 158Ind.Cas.757

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax: under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question arises in this way.. The assessee carries on business at Nasik as a money lender, and he also buys. and sells gold and silver. He buys ornaments, turns them into metal, and. sells the metal in Bombay. He keeps no books of account, and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not able to ascertain with accuracy what the profits were from the sales of gold and silver, but in the year of assessment 1932-33 the Income-tax Officer added to the assessee's income a certain percentage on the sale of gold and silver, three per cent, on the sale of gold and five per cent, on the sale of silver, and on that basis he made the assessment under Section 23(5) of the Act. In the next year of assessment a different Income-tax Officer dealt with the matter, and he came to the conclusion that, as the price of gold had risen very rapidly during the last two month...


Apr 01 1935

Mahomed Oosman Vs. Essack Saleh Mahomed Vanjara

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1935

Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR502

Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiffs seek to establish a claim to be what they designate hereditary mujawars of the Pir Haji Ali Dargah. The history o the dargah is traced in the judgment on the counter-claim on p. 524- eds. See also judgment on counter claim. P. 529. The management of the said dargah and the properties appertaining thereto is subject to a scheme framed by this Court in suit No. 1337 of 1916. The defendants are the trustees appointed under the scheme. The plaintiffs claim, independently of the scheme, to act as mujawars, to occupy free of rent certain quarters conveniently designated in the plan (exhibit 7) as the mujawar's quarters, to take and keep for themselves the offerings collected in what is styled the mujawar's ghalla (offering box) and the other offerings specified in the plaint paragraphs 4 to 8 and prayers (b) to (g). It is also prayed that a suit brought by the trustees to eject the plaintiffs from the mujawar's quarters may be stayed, and that interference with th...


Apr 01 1935

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Gopal Vajinath Manohar.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Apr-01-1935

Reported in: [1935]3ITR372(Bom)

BEAUMONT, C. J. - This is a case stated by Commissioner of Income Tax under section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The question arises in this way. The assessee carries on business at Nasik as a money-lender, and he also buys and sells gold and silver. He buys ornaments, turn them into metal, and sells the in Bombay. He keeps no book of account, and therefore the Income Tax Officers was not able to ascertain with accuracy what the profits were from the sales of gold and silver, but in the year of assessment, 1932-33, the Income Tax Officer added to the assessees income a certain percentage of sale of gold and silver, and on that basis he made assessment under section 23(3) of the Act. In the next year of assessment a different Income Tax Officer dealt with the matter, and he came to the conclusion that, as the price of gold had risen rapidly during the last two month of the previous year of assessment, the Income Tax Officer had under-estimated the profits derived from the sale of...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial