Mumbai Court September 1942 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.
Mahadev Gopal Savant Vs. Bhikaji Vishram Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom292; (1943)45BOMLR544
Lokur, J.1. This is a revision application involving an important question of law on which there has been a considerable divergence of opinion. On March 18, 1940, the petitioner made an application to the Small Cause Court, Bombay, for leave to sue as a pauper to recover Rs. 218 due to him on a promissory note dated March 23, 1937. His claim was then in time. The Deputy Registrar of the Small Cause Court issued a notice to the opponent and after holding an inquiry, he passed an order on April 15, 1940, refusing to allow the petitioner to sue as a pauper. On the same day the petitioner made an application to the Small Cause Court requesting permission to file a suit that day on payment of four annas and to pay the balance of the Court-fees in seven days. On that application the Court made the following order : 'Receive rupee one on account of Court-fee to-day and allow suit to be filed. Balance of costs to be paid in seven days.' It appears that the suit was registered on the same day a...
Maharaja of Patiala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR202(Bom)
1. Under Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax (XI of 1922) the Inco me-tax Appelleate Tribunal, M. MUNIR, President, N. R. GUNDIL, Judicial Member, and P. N. S. AIYAR, Accounting Member, delivered the follwoing judgment :- PRESIDENT. - "This is an appeal by His Highness Maharaja Yadevindra Singh Maharajdhiraj Bahadur, Maharaja of Patiala, from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, A Range, Bombay, passed on appeal from the order of the respondent by which he assessed for the assessment yer 1937-38 the income that accrued in Bombay to the appellants father, His Highness Maharahadhiraj Sir Bhupindra Singh, the late Maharaja of Patiala. 2. The late Maharaja being a Ruling Prince was residing not of B ritish India ithin the meaning of Section 42 of the Income-tax A ct. He had some private property in several placesand was derivi ng income from some other soruces in British India, e.g., from dividends, speculation and dealings in shares, and was being ass essed ub ...
Dayaldas Kashiram Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom110; (1943)45BOMLR136
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has submitted four questions to this Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions arise in these circumstances.2. The assessment upon the assessee for the year 1937-38 was made on October 8, 1937, by the Income-tax Officer, C Ward, Section II, which was one of the divisions of Bombay City for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan, under Section 5 of the Act before the amendment of 1929, On October 21, 1938, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan created a Special Provincial Circle, for which he appointed certain Income-tax Officers to exercise jurisdiction throughout the limits of his own jurisdiction, that is Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan, in respect of certain cases transferred to them, and on October 31 he transferred to that Special Provincial Circle the assessee's case. The Special Provi...
Raghavendracharya Appacharya Katti Vs. Vaman Shriniwas Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom191; (1943)45BOMLR253
Broomfield, J.1. In this second appeal there is a question of limitation and also a question of the construction of s, 92 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The property in dispute consists of certain fields at Hukeri which once belonged to a certain Govind Krishna. He mortgaged them as long ago as 1870 by a deed of possessory mortgage, exhibit 44. It provided that the mortgagee was to enjoy the property in lieu of interest on the mortgage debt and until such time as the principal' of the debt Rs. 150 was paid off and the land redeemed. Govind died in 1881 and he was succeeded by his brother's widow Ramabai. She died in 1892 and the estate then passed to five distant cousins of Govind Krishna. One of these, Raghavendracharya, who is defendant No. 3 the appellant before us, brought a suit in 1931 for accounts and redemption of the mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. It was found on taking accounts that nothing was due on the mortgage and accordingly a decree was passed...
Madhavrao Ganpat Pagire Vs. Shankar Hari Bhagvat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom278; (1943)45BOMLR462
Broomfield, J.1. We are concerned in this Letters Patent Appeal with the equities arising when joint family property has been alienated without legal necessity and the alienation is set aside at the suit of persons interested in the property who were not parties to the alienation.2. The facts, so far as it is necessary to mention them, are these. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of the plaintiffs, their father Hari and his younger brother Ahilaji. It; appears from the entries in the Record of Rights that in the year 1921 Hari mortgaged the two survey numbers, which are the subject of litigation as security for a loan taken from the Pimpalwadi Co-operative Credit Society. Hari and his brother Ahilaji had an account with this society from the year 1918. In 1922 Hari died. In 1924 the Society obtained an award decree against Ahilaji. In October, 1925, Ahilaji and the plaintiffs' mother together sold the two survey numbers for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 2,000 to Madhavrao,...
Dayaldas Khushiram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR67(Bom)
JUDGEMENT OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALUnder Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bombay Branch) (consisting of N. R. GUNDIL, Judicial Member, and P. C. MALHOTRA, Accountant Member) delivered the following judgment on August 23, 1941 :-'These two appeals arise out of a supplementary assessment of the appellant, Mr. Dayaldas Khushiram, for the assessment year 1937-38, made by the Income-tax Officer, Section II (Central), under Section 23(4) and Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant applied, under Section 27, to cancel the best judgment assessment, but the Income-tax Officer dismissed the application. The appellant took that order, as well as the order of assessment, in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, in each case, declined to interfere. These two appeals are respectively taken from his orders, and involve common facts. They were heard together, and may be conveniently disposed of in one judgment. The facts will ma...
Chimanram Motilal (Gold and Silver) Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR125
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench) under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it raises two questions relating to a further assessment made on the assessees under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The first question, which presents no difficulty whatever, is :Whether in the circumstances of this case the notice of re-assessment issued to the applicant under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act was invalid or illegal for failure to specify the particular source of income that had escaped assessment ?3. The notice under Section 34 stated that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the assessees' income from all sources which arose, accrued or was received in the previous year had partially escaped assessment. It is said that the notice ought to have specified the particular source or income which was alleged to have escaped assessment, and reliance is placed on the form of notice given in t...
Messrs. Chimanram Motilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom132; [1943]11ITR44(Bom)
JUDGEMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALUnder Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bombay Branch) (consisting of N. R. GUNDIL, Judicial Member, and P. C. MALHOTRA, Accountant Member) delivered the following judgment on May 10, 1941.'This appeal calls into question a supplementary assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, A Range, Bombay, on December 9, 1940.2. The contest is in regard to the assessment made in the assessment year 1936-37. The original assessment for the year in question was made by the Income-tax Officer on July 9, 1937 computing the appellants assessable income at Rs. 1,47,160. Some time later, on definite information received, the same Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34 to the appellant to make a fresh return of his income, stating that his income from 'all sources' had partially escaped as...
Hiralal Kalyanmal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom98; (1943)45BOMLR115
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 of 1922, raising two quite separate and distinct questions.2. The first question is :Whether the commission of one per cent. realised by the assessees on the value of the hundis collected by them in Bombay in respect of the cloth sold by their Indore shop to merchants in Bombay is liable to be assessed to payment of income-tax and super-tax in British India ?3. The facts in relation to that question are that by an agreement made in 1919 between the Kalyanmal Mills, Ltd., which was a joint stock company registered in Indore of the one part, and the assessees of the other part, the assessees were to be entitled, amongst other things, to be paid by the company a commission at the rate of one per cent. on the gross sale proceeds of all cloth and yam of the company, and it was provided in Clause (5) of the agreement that the commission should be due to the a...
Messrs. Hiralal Kalyanmal and Another Vs. Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1942
Reported in: [1943]11ITR128(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 racing two quite separate and distinct questions.The first question is 'Whether the commission of one per cent. revised by the assesses on the value of the hundis collected by them in Bombay in respect of the cloth sold by their Indore shop to merchants in Bombay is liable to be assessed to payment of income-tax and super-tax in British India.'The facts in relation to that question are that by an agreement made in 1919 between the Kalyanmal Mills, Ltd., which was a joint stock company registered in Indore of the one part, and the assesses of the other part, the assesses were to be entitled, amongst other things, to be paid the Company a commission at the rate of one per cent on the gross sale proceeds of all cloth and yarn of the Company, and it was provided in clause (5) of the agreement that the commission should be due to theses firm yearly on the December 31...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »