Mumbai Court March 1938 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the GraIn Merchants Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1227
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raising a point of no great difficulty. The assessees are the Grain Merchants Association of Bombay and they had put in their return declaring a deficit of Rs. 1,819. Their income, material for the present purpose, consists of interest earned on investments. Admittedly that source of income is liable to tax, but the assessee Association say that they are not liable since they fall within the exemption contained in Section 4(3) of the Act. That section provides that tax is not payable in respect of any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes. Then there is a proviso to it to the effect that in this sub-section ' charitable purpose ' includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The assessees have passe...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Bombay Trust Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1222
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question whether there was any material on which the Assistant Commissioner could find that there was not sufficient cause preventing the Bombay Company from producing the account books of the Hongkong Company as required under the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 22(4) of the Act.2. Shortly the facts which give rise to the question are these : The Bombay Company which is referred to in the question is a company carrying on business in Bombay. The Hongkong Company is carrying on business in Hongkong, In respect of the year 1926-27 the Bombay Company was assessed to tax as the statutory agent of the Hongkong Company. The matter was in dispute, and was carried to the Privy Council who held that there was-a business connection between the two companies and that the Bombay Company was properly assessed as the agent of the Hongkon...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom45; [1938]6ITR427(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act arising a point of no great difficulty. The assessees are the Grain Merchants Association of Bombay and they had put in their return declaring a deficit of Rs. 1,819. Their income, material for the present purpose, consists of interest earned on investments. Admittedly that source of income is liable to tax but the assessee Association say that they are not liable since they fall within the exemption contained in Sec. 4(3) of the Act. That section provides that tax is not payable in respect of any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes. Then there is a proviso to it to the effect that in this sub-section 'charitable purpose' includes relief to the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The assessees have passed a resolution, in point o...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Bombay Trust Corporation.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom43; [1938]6ITR445(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising the question whether there was any material on which the assistant commissioner could find that there was not sufficient cause preventing the Bombay Company from producing the account books of the Hongkong Company as required under the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 22(4) of the Act.Shortly, the facts which give rise to the question are these :- The Bombay Company which is referred to in the question is Company carrying on business in Bombay. The Hongkong Company carrying on business in Hongkong. In respect of the year 1926-27 the Bombay Company was assessed to tax as the statutory agent at the Hongkong Company. The matter was in dispute and carried to the Privy Council who held that there was no business connection between the two companies and that the Bombay Company was properly assessed as the agent of the Hongkong company. Thereafte...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom490; [1938]6ITR603(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which he raises the question, whether two sums of seventy-nine thousand and odd rupees and two lacs and odd rupees and two lacs and odd rupees respectively being interest accruing without British India on dollar securities and sterling securities respectively, were, in the circumstances of the case, received in, or brought into British India.The learned Advocate-General has contended in the first instance that this is really a question of fact which ought not to have been referred to us. No doubt, the question whether or not the sums were actually received in British India, is a question of fact, but, if the sums were not actually received, the question whether they ought to be treated as constructively received is a question of law. Unfortunately, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has not stated the facts of the case very clearly in this reference. The refere...
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. of Canada Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR321(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a Reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax raising in substance two questions, first of all whether he was justified in resort in to Rule 35 of the Income-tax Rules for the purpose of assessing the Company whose income-tax was in question, and secondly, if the was right in applying the rule, whether he has applied it correctly., We are dealing here with a company which carries on life insurance business and whose head office is in Canada, the Indian business being a branch business. The year of assessment is the financial year 1935-36, and the previous year is the year ending 31st December 1934. Rule 35 lays down a rough and ready method for assessing the profits of nonresident insurance companies in the absence of more reliable data. The method is to take the total world profits of the company, and then treat the Indian profits as bearing the same proportion to the total world profits as the Indian premium income bears to the total premium income. The ...
Gaekwar Baroda State Railway Vs. Hafiz Habib-ul Haq
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR811
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated December 22, 1933, which varied but in the main confirmed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra dated July 3, 1929. The suit was brought by MohammadHabibullah, who died after the judgment of the trial Court was given and during the pendency of the appeal to the High Court. The respondents to this appeal were brought on the record as his heirs and personal representatives. The defendant in the suit was described as ' The Gaekwar Baroda State Railway through the Manager and Engineer-in-Chief' of the saidrailway.2. The plaintiff was a timber merchant, and in April, 1923, he entered into four contracts for the supply of sleepers for the said railway in Baroda which are the subject-matters of this appeal. A fifth contract for the supply of shisham wood was also comprised in the suit.3. The contracts were made in Baroda between the plaintiff and a Mr. Mart...
Vishwanath Sadashiv Natu Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom410; (1938)40BOMLR685
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania by which he dismissed the suit on the preliminary point of limitation. He held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred under Section 527 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888. That section provides that no suit shall be instituted against the corporation in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of that Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of that Act unless it is commenced within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action. Three points, I think, arise for consideration. First of all, what is the plaintiffs' cause of action Secondly, does it fall within the terms of Section 527 And, thirdly, if so, did the cause of action accrue more than six months before the suit was filed ?2. Upon the first question as to what is the cause of action one has to look at the plaint, and for the purposes of the preliminary point we must assume ...
Parvatibai Harivallabhdas Vani Vs. Vinayak Balvant Jangam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom23; (1938)40BOMLR989
Broomfield, J.1. The facts in these two appeals are as follows :-On July 28, 1920, the appellant Parvatibai purchased for Rs. 65,000 certain immovable properties from one Martand Narayan. The latter alleged that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale. Parvatibai had to bring a suit No. 249 of 1927 for possession with mesne profits. Pending the suit she applied for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant agreed to give security for the profits for the year 1927-1928, and one Mohite was offered and accepted as surety for the amount of Rs. 4,851, which was agreed upon as the amount of mesne profits for that year, on October 20, 1927. The form of the bond taken from him provided :-Therefore I, Ganpat Narayan Mohite stand surety for the abovenamed Martand Narayan Indulkar and make an agreement for myself and my heirs by this document with the Court that the defendant will satisfy the decree or order that may be passed against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, and that if...
Raichand Lalchandshet Vs. Tanibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom65; (1938)40BOMLR1198
Sen, J.1. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Yeola for a declaration and an injunction and succeeded. The defendant appealed to the District Court and that Court on an application being made to it passed the order, ' Interim stay pending disposal of the application.' At the hearing of the application the plaintiff respondent's pleader gave a purshis undertaking to rebuild the portion of the defendant's building which had been ordered to be pulled down in the event of the lower Court's decree being reversed in the appeal. He has also expressed his willingness to furnish security up to Rs. 100 in token of the undertaking. In view of the purshis the interim stay order was vacated and the plaintiff-respondent was ordered to furnish the security before the lower Court. Against this order the defendant has preferred an appeal in this Court.2. The learned advocate for the plaintiff-respondent has raised a prelimina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »