Mumbai Court May 1936 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Hungerford Investment Trust Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1004
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, from the decision of the High Court at Calcutta upon a reference made under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). Two questions were originally referred to the High Court for its opinion, but the assessee made an admission which rendered the first question unnecessary. The sole question before the Court was as follows:-The assessee's income in assessment having included dividends declared on April 16, 1931, arid November 3, 1931, by a company whose profits of 1930 and 1931 were found to include specified sums to which in accordance with Section 4 the Act did not apply: and the said company having been assessed in respect of profits to which the Act did apply: is such proportion of the dividends, as the specified sums bear to the aggregate of all profits in 1930 and 1931 respectively, exempted from taxation to ordinary income-tax in accordance with Section 14 (2) 2. The question ari...
Tag this Judgment!M.E. Moolla Sons Limited Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1011
George Rankin, J.1. The controversy in this case is between the plaintiff company M. E. Moolla Sons, Limited, which was registered under the Indian Companies Act in 1921 and which was ordered to be wound up compulsorily on June 21, 1927, on the one side, and the Official Assignee at Rangoon on the other side as assignee of the estate of one M. E. Moolla who was adjudicated insolvent on May 7, 1927. The subject-matter of the dispute is the right or interest which under a deed of settlement dated May 5, 1908, made by his father, was taken by one Maung Chit Maung and conveyed by him to Moolla by registered deed dated December 17, 1919. The controversy arises out of the fact that on December 22, 1920, by an unregistered instrument purporting to be articles of agreement made between Moolla, his mother Mariam Bee Bee, and Mohammed Ali Modan as trustee for the plaintiff company (not yet registered) Moolla agreed to sell to the company his business, the goodwill thereof, and the several proper...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Mercantile Bank of India Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR995
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, delivered on a reference of questions of law by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922).2. These questions of law arose in course of an assessment for super-tax and surcharge made by the Income-tax Officer upon the respondents, as trustees of the late Sir David Yule, for the year ending March 31, 1932, in respect of Rs. 5,71,30,000, being the nominal amount of certain bonus debentures issued to them in respect of their shareholding in certain companies in the year ending March 31, 1931. The respondents appealed to the Assistant Commissioner, Calcutta, and, while the appeal was pending, the Commissioner, of his own motion, made the present reference to the High Court, asking the following questions of law, viz. :-First Question.-The assessee being in his own name and through nominees the holder (a) of the whole...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kundan Lal Vs. Musammat Musharrafi Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR783
George Rankin, J.1. The plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated April 27, 1933, which set aside a preliminary mortgage decree granted to them by the Subordinate Judge of Kheri dated September 7, 1931. The suit was brought on February 24, 1931, to enforce the terms of a registered mortgage deed dated September 8, 1924. Defendant No. 1, Musammat Musharraf Begam, was the only contesting defendant and will be referred to herein as the defendant. She was described in the plaint as being of about forty years of age. The date of her marriage does not appear, but it appears that at the time of her marriage her husband Mohammad Abul Bashir Khan agreed to pay her dower of Rs. 50,000.2. By deed dated February 9, 1920, executed at a time when the defendant's husband had incurred a certain number of debts, though it is not shown that he was then insolvent, he transferred to her five villages in lieu of the promised dower. The villages, even if allowance be made for encumbra...
Tag this Judgment!inayat Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR764
Roche, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated June 19, 1935, which confirmed a judgment of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, finding the appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to death.2. The ground upon which special leave to appeal was granted and upon which the argument upon this appeal was rested was that there was such a wrongful admission of evidence in the Courts below and such a consequent miscarriage of justice as to justify and require the interference of His Majesty.3. The principles upon which His Majesty will intervene in such matters and which will guide this Board in tendering advice to His Majesty in this regard have been frequently stated and are not in doubt. Their Lordships do not constitute a Court of Criminal Appeal. Their functions are thus defined in the judgment delivered by Lord Haldane in the case of Dal Singh v. The King-Emperor (1917) L.R. 44 IndAp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›