Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR104
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The eight petitioners were prosecuted at the instance of opponent No. 2, the Ahmedabad Cotton ., under Sections 66 and 67 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act, 1938. Applicants Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted under Section 67 read with Section 66 for having instigated and incited others to take part in an illegal strike, and the other applicants for having gone on strike or joined a strike which had been held by the Industrial Court to be illegal. They were convicted by the City Magistrate, 1st Class, Ahmedabad. They made a revision application to the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge,2. Applicants Nos. 5 to 7 and 9 were employees in the spinning department of the Ahmedabad Cotton . Applicant No. 1 was the Secretary of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association and applicant No. 2 one of the office-bearers of that Association. Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 were the editor and printer of a magazine conducted by the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1944]12ITR89(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, this Court having directed him to raise the question : 'Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, dated the 15th day of April 1940, is a valid order.'The material facts are that the assessees were assessed for the year 1938-39, so that the assessment year, expired on the 31st of March 1939. The Income-tax Officer included in the assessment certain cash items which he considered formed part of the income of the assessees, though the assessees disputed it. The assessees then appealed to the Assistant Commissioner who took the view that these cash items did not form part of the income of the assessees in the year of assessment, and he, therefore, reduced by a large extent the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Thereupon the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice upon the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom153; (1944)46BOMLR138
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income- tax under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, this Court having directed him to raise the question :Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan, under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, dated April 15, 1940, is a valid order 2. The material facts are that the assessees were assessed for the year 1938-39, so that the assessment year expired on March 31, 1939. The Income-tax Officer included in the assessment certain cash items which he considered formed part of the income of the assessees, though the assessees disputed it. The assessees then appealed to the Assistant Commissioner, who took the view that these cash items did not form part of the income of the assessees in the year of assessment, and he, therefore, reduced by a large extent the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. Thereupon the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice upon the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR129
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal, the question raised being :Whether, in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the rates of super-tax prescribed by the Indian Finance Act, 1939, applied to the assessee's income for super-tax for the purpose of his assessment for the year 1939-40 The question really involves whether Section 6(4) (b) of the Finance Act of 1939 is applicable to the case of the assessee.2. The facts found are that the total world income of the assessee is Rs. 2,43,119 ; his interest on securities is Rs. 44,364, and his other income in British India is negligible. It is also found that the assessee is a non-resident.3. Under the amended Income-tax Act, which came into force on April 1, 1939, Section 17 lays down the method of calculating the assessable income of a non-resident. Section 18 deals with the subject of deduction at the source, and the material sub-section for the present case is (3D), which provides...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR134
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the questions raised involve the construction of 8. 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The year of assessment is the year 1939-40, and the accounting year is from April 1, 1938, to March 31, 1939.2. The facts giving rise to the questions raised are these. On April 18, 1928, the assessee executed a settlement of certain hundis and promissory notes, which were transferred to trustees, and under Clause (2) of the settlement the trustees were to pay the income arising from the settled fund to Harshadrai, the son of the settlor, during his life, and by Clause (3), after the death of Harshadrai, the trustees were to hold the trust funds in trust for his heirs according to Hindu law, and by Clause (10) the settlor reserved to himself a general power of revocation. On December 13, 1938, that is to say, during the accounting year, the settlor executed another ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom143; [1944]12ITR358(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal the question raised being :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the rates of super-tax prescribed by the Indian Finance Act, 1939, applied to the assessees income for super-tax for the purpose of his assessment for the year 1939-40 ?.'The question really involves whether Section 6(4) (b) of the Finance Act of 1939 is applicable to the case of the assessee.The facts found are that the total world income of the assessee is Rs. 2,43,119; his interest on securities is Rs. 44,364, and his other income in British India is negligible. It is also found that the assessee is a non-resident.Under the amended Income-tax Act, which came into force on April 1, 1939, Section 17 lays down the method of calculating the assessable income of a non-resident. Section 18 deals with the subject of deduction at the source, and the material sub-section for the present case is (3D), which provides :-'Where the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1944]12ITR185(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the questions raised involve the construction of Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The year of assessment is the year 1939-40, and the accounting year is from April 1, 1938, to March 31, 1939.The facts giving rise to the questions raised are these. On April 18, 1928, the assessee executed a settlement of certain hundis and promissory notes, which were transferred to trustees, and under clause (2) of the settlement the trustee were to pay the income arising from the settled fund to Harshadrai, the son of the settlor, during his life, and by clause (3), after the death of Harshadrai, the trustees were to hold the trust funds in trust for his heirs according to Hindu law, and by clause (10) the settlor reserved to himself a general power of revocation. On December 13, 1938, that is to say during the accounting year, the settlor executed another deed revo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom150; (1944)46BOMLR123
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, raising three questions. The first question is :Whether the Commissioner's refusal to interfere with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's findingsi on the question of the inadmissibility of the foreign losses was an order prejudicial to the assessee within the meaning of Section 66(2) of the Act ?The second question relates to the claim to set off foreign losses.2. So far as the first question is concerned, the Income-tax Officer made his assessment, and there was an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, who agreed with the Income-tax Officer's order. Then an application was made to the Commissioner to refer a case under Section 66(2) of the Act, but he refused to do so. The assessee did not then apply to the Court to direct the Commissioner to refer a case under Section 66(5), as he might have done, but applied to the Commissioner to revise th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1944]12ITR199(Bom)
Income-tax Reference No. 8.CHAGLA, J. - This reference raises the question whether the sum of Rs. 15,684 representing the share of Ashokbhai in the profits of the firm of Messrs. Narottam Lalbhai and Company could in law be included in the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the assessment of the assessee for the year 1938-39.The facts are that Ashokbhai attained majority on the 24th of January 1939. Prior to that he was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessment of the firm which was for the year 1938-39 was completed on the 4th of July 1938. The assessment of the assessee was completed on the 2nd of February 1939 and the assessment of Ashokbhai was also completed on the 2nd of February 1939. The previous year, as far as the assessment of the firm is concerned, was the calendar year 1937, and the previous year as far as the assessment of the assessee is concerned ended on the 3rd of November 1937. The assessee contended that inasmuch as Ashokbhai had atta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom148; (1944)46BOMLR118
Chagla, J.1. This reference raises the question whether the sum of Rs. 15,684 representing the share of Ashokbhai in the profits of the firm of Messrs. Narottam Lalbhai & Company could in law be included in the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the assessment of the assessee for the year 1938-39.2. The facts are that Ashokbhai attained majority on January 24, 1939. Prior to that he was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessment of the firm which was for the year 1938-39 was completed on July 4, 1938. The assessment of the assessee was completed on February 2, 1939, and the assessment of Ashokbhai was also completed on February 2, 1939. The previous year, as far as the assessment of the firm is concerned, was the calendar year 1937, and the previous year, as far as the assessment of the assessee is concerned, ended on November 3, 1937. The assessee contended that inasmuch as Ashokbhai had attained majority before his assessment had been completed, it was ...
Tag this Judgment!