Mumbai Court November 1944 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. BipIn Silk Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1947Bom45; [1946]14ITR344(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This reference deals with two applications made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of the assessment of the assessees, for 2 accounting periods, viz. 1-9-1939, to 31-12-1939 and the calendar year 1940. The relevant facts are these: The assesses company is a joint stock company with a share capital divided into 100 shares of Rs. 5,000 each. 43 shares are held by the directors admittedly in their own right and in their individual names. Twenty shares stand in the name of Mr. Nanji Kalidas, Mrs. Nanji, Sirdar Tribhowandas Jag jivandas, Raja Pandit Anandpuriyaji and Rajya Ratna H.M. Wadia. It is stated in the reference that these shares are held by Nanji Kalidas not in his individual capacity but 'as a trustee'.2. On behalf of the Commissioner, it is contended that as these 20 shares are held by five persons in their capacity as trustees, it is improper to construe that they have an interest in these shares within the meaning of Section 2(21)(a) read with Clause (c) a...
Emperor Vs. Nanabhai Nagindas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR644
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal by the Government of the Province of Bombay. The accused is a petty dealer in ghee at Surat and when his house was searched by the Police Sub-Inspector on August 21, 1943, he was found to have in his possession Rs. 47-9-3 in small coins in excess of his personal and business requirements for the time being. This being in contravention of Rule 90(2)(e) of the Defence of India Rules, he was tried by the City Magistrate of Surat, convicted under Rule 90(5), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment ,for one month. In appeal the conviction and fine were set aside by the Sessions Judge of Surat on the ground that Rule 90(2)(e) was ultra vires of the Central Government, being in excess of the rule-making power conferred upon it by Section 2 of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Rule 90(2)(e) of the Defence of India Rules provides that no person shall possess coin to an amount in excess of his personal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›