Mumbai Court September 1943 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.
Seth Chimanlal Lalbhai, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1943
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...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Mohamed Yusuf Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR108
John Beaumont Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The facts giving rise to the questions raised are simple. In 1929 a wakf was executed, and under the terms of that wakf the trustees had to pay twenty-one per cent of the income of the property transferred to the wife of the settlor. Down to the year 1939 the share of the wife in the income was not added to the income of the settlor for the purposes of income-tax, and in the assessment year 1939-40 again the income of the wife was not included in that of the husband, but after the assessment had been made, the superior Officer of the Income-tax Officer took the view that the amended Section 16, Sub-section (3), had been misconstrued, and that the income of the wife ought to have been included in that of the husband. Thereupon the Income-tax authorities proceeded to re-open the assessment under Section 34, alleging that part of the income of the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Sir Mahomed Yusuf Ismail.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom160; [1944]12ITR8(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The facts giving rise to the question raised are simple. In 1929 a Wakf was executed, and under the terms of that Wakf the trustees had to pay 21 per cent of the income of the property transferred to the wife of the settlor. Down to the year 1939 the share of the wife in the in come was not added to the income of the settlor for the purposes of income-tax, and in the assessment year 1939-40 again the income of the wife was not included in that of the husband, but after the assessment had been made, the superior officer of the Income-tax Officer took the view that the amended Section 16, sub-section (3), had been misconstrued and that the income of the wife ought to have been included in that of the husband. Thereupon the Income-tax authorities proceeded to reopen the assessment under Section 34, alleging that part of the income of the assessee-husband had escaped as...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Karim Bros., Charity Fund.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR603(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 the Commissioner to state the question of law. The question raised is : 'Whether that portion of the income of the trust which is allocated to the family charity fund is income which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of sub-section (3)(i) of Section 4 of the Act.'The relevant provisions of Section 4(3) of the Income-tax Act provide for exemption in the case of any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes, and in the case of property so held in part only for such purpose, the income applied or finally set apart for application, thereto; and then it is provided 'In this sub-section charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any object of general public utility.' That definition is wider than the leg...
Vissonji Sons and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1943
Reported in: [1946]14ITR272(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to the Court is : 'Whether in the circumstances of the case it was rightly held that the sum of Rs. 7,20,000 let off by the appellants in the scheme of reconstruction of the Acme ., was not money advanced in the ordinary course of their money-lending business; and that, therefore, it could not be claimed as bad debt under Section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act ?' It will be noticed that the question is limited in its character. It is only the Tribunal were right in finding that this Rs. 7,20,000 was not advanced in the ordinary course of the appellants money-lending business. If we told that the Tribunal were wrong in that finding and that the sum was lent in the ordinary course of business it would follow from the facts found, to which I will refer in a moment, that further question would arise, weather the cancellation of the debt was in the ordinary ...
The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Mohanlal Vajechand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom239(1); (1944)46BOMLR439
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a partition decree and is preferred by the Government under the following circumstances :-2. The plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis for partition of his one-fourth share in the suit property against the other members of his family. A preliminary decree was passed on April, 23, 1936, by which it was declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a one-fourth share in the suit properties. It was further directed that the plaintiff should pay the amount of the court-fee stamp to the Government Thereafter a final decree was passed on September 27, 1937, but before that date the plaintiff found that he had to pay a greater amount for his share of the family debts than the value of the property which he would receive in partition. He, therefore, gave up the claim for his entire share in the family property in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The learned Judge in passing the final decree declared that the plaintiff had given up ...
The Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad Vs. Government of the Province of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR643
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad against a decree of the Assistant Judge in appeal dismissing its suit against the Government The suit was for a declaration that the part of a public street on which a cabin was erected by its lessee of the adjoining land had vested in the plaintiff-Municipality and that the Government had acted illegally in recovering from the Municipality Rs. 128-2-0 being half the amount of rent which the latter had realised from its lessee. It also prayed for its refund.2. The events which gave rise to this litigation are shortly these :-The Municipality with the previous sanction of the Commissioner granted a lease of a portion of a public street to the Indo-Burma Petroleum Company, Limited, for three years from June 1, 1933, for erecting a petrol pump on that street and a petrol tank below it on condition that the lessee should payRs. 25 per month as well as the assessment of the land to the Government, and Rs. 25 to the Munici...
Savalaram Girdharilal Marwadi Vs. Himatlal Pratapmal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom350; (1944)46BOMLR640
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit for accounts and dissolution against a registered firm, defendant No. 1, and its partners, defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 ; and he obtained a preliminary decree for dissolution. He went in appeal against certain orders passed in the preliminary decree ; but during the pendency of the appeal one of the respondents died and his heirs were not brought on the record within the statutory period. The plaintiff applied to the appellate Court for an order setting aside the abatement of the appeal, and an order excusing the delay in making the application to set aside the abatement. In its judgment (in which it was held incidentally that the order' setting aside the abatement could not be granted and the delay could not be excused) the Court decided that the appeal abated as a whole and not only as against the deceased respondent. It does not seem to have been argued by any one before the lower appellate Court that the appeal did not abate at all; but i...
In Re: BenjamIn Guy Horniman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom127; (1944)46BOMLR94
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The circumstances giving rise to the order are these.2. On April 28, 1943, the applicant, Mr. Horniman, who is a journalist in Bombay, published under the heading of editorial comments in the Bombay Sentinel, which is a paper circulating, certainly in Bombay, and possibly to a limited extent in the United Provinces, these words :The Allahabad High Court, where an Indian happens to be the Chief Justice, alone refused to take any action until it sees with its own eyes a certified copy of the whole Federal Court's judgment.It would not even accept the word of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru nor trust the newspaper reports. At any rate, it will have to act when the certified copies are furnished to it.It is always within the power of a Court to take judicial notice of an evident fact which nobody can deny.Perhaps in this instance the denial of Mr. Amery disturbed the equanimity of ...
Purshottam Vasudeo Vs. Ramkrishna Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR649
Lokur, J.1. The short question arising in these appeals is whether a principal can sue the legal representative of his agent for an account, the agent having died without rendering an account. The defendant's father Vasudeo had two brothers, Ramkrishna and Bhaskar, and when the three brothers were still undivided, Ramkrishna and Bhaskar appointed Vasudeo to manage the joint family property, and on, September 25, 1908, both of them gave him a power of attorney. Vasudeo managed the property till 1924 when the three brothers came to a partition. At the partition the property was not divided by metes and bounds and Vasudeo continued to manage the shares of Ramkrishna and Bhaskar also till 1931. In that year the lands were divided by metes and bounds and subsequently in November, 1935, the power of attorney was cancelled. Vasudeo died on October 30, 1937, without rendering an account of his management. He left a minor son who was taken care of by his mother's father Shivaram. In April, 1938...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »