Mumbai Court September 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.
Emperor Vs. Mhatarji Bhau Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR143
Divatia, J.1. This is an application by the accused against his conviction by the trial Magistrate, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Nasik, for breach of the District Magistrate's order of December 27, 1943, to report the stock of Bajri in his possession, punishable under Rule 116 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The charge against the accused was that on February 6 last he failed to report his stock of Bajri to the Talati either orally or in writing within the time prescribed by the District Magistrate's order of December 27, 1943, which was published in the Bombay Government Gazette of January 6, 1944, and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Rule 116 of the Defence of India Rules.2. It is common ground that the order was published in the Bombay Government Gazette of January 6 last to the effect that stocks of certain cereals, viz., Bajri, Jowar, Nagli, Paddy and Rice, should be declared in the first week of every month in the manner prescribed in the notificati...
The Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR222
Kania, J.1. This is a reference made' under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The applicant is a non-resident company incorporated in the United Kingdom. In and before 1939 the company carried on insurance business in British India in lines other than life insurance. In respect of their profits of the accounting year 1939, questions now submitted for the opinion of the Court arose in the assessment year 1940-41.3. For the assessment of its income the Bombay office filed before the Income-tax Officer a revenue account for the year 11939. Under the Insurance Act Form F is prescribed to be filed before the Superintendent of Insurance by companies which do not carry on life insurance business. That form, inter alia, contains an item of 'Interest, dividends and rents' received in respect of its funds. The assessee-company has its head office in England. In the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal it was admitted that no portion...
Emperor Vs. Chimanlal Sankalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom305
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, acquitting the accused of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. On May 14, 1942, the Sub-Inspector of Police obtained from the Assistant Superintendent of Police a warrant under Section 6 of the Act to raid and search the room occupied by the accused. Armed with that warrant, the Sub-Inspector sent a bogus punter with six marked rupees and some slips on which figures for American future were entered. As instructed by him the bogus punter went to the room of the accused, offered him those six rupees and offered bets on the figures which he had taken down on the slips. The accused accepted the bets and wrote out the figures on the cover of a book of songs. The bogus punter then gave a signal and the police raided the shop along with panchas. The marked coins and the book were then found by the panchas lying...
The Motor Union Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom285; [1945]13ITR272(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This is a reference made under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.The applicant is a non-resident company incorporated in the United Kingdom. In and before 1939 the company carried on insurance business in British India in lines other than life insurance. In respect of their profits of the accounting year 1939, questions now submitted for the opinion of the Court arose in the assessment year 1940-41.For the assessment of its income the Bombay office filed before the Income-tax Officer a revenue account for the year 1939. Under the Insurance Act Form F is prescribed to be filed before the Superintendent of Insurance by companies which do not carry on life insurance business. That form inter alia, contains an item of 'Interest, dividends and rents' received in respect of its funds. The assessee-company has its head office in England. In the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal it was admitted that no portion of the ...
Emperor Vs. Abdulla Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom350; (1945)47BOMLR78
Divatia, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Government of Bombay against the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, discharging the accused of the offences under Rule 39(i)(a)(b), and Rule 38(1)(b) and (5) read with Rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.2. The facts shortly are that the accused, who is a merchant in Bombay, sent, on August 19, 1943, a telegram from Bombay to his agent at Colombo as follows:40 barrels 'Jalabala' left 5th. Document sent.3. This message was sent in reply to inquiries made by his agent about the cargo to be despatched by the vessel. The message was intercepted by the Censor's office in Bombay, and on August 31, the Censor's office sent it to the police for enquiry. The police traced the accused as the sender of the message and started proceedings against him under the rules mentioned above. The relevant provisions of Rule 38, Clause (1)(b), are that 'no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse...
Jayantilal Jamnadas Vs. Chhaganlal Nathoobhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom417; (1945)47BOMLR317
Chagla, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner praying that the award dated July 14, 1943, be taken off the file of this Court. It seems that a suit was filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by the respondent against the petitioner and that suit was referred to the arbitration of Chhotalal Jekissondas Ghia, an advocate practising in that Court. The arbitrator made and published his award on July 14, 1943. On July 15, 1943, he gave notice to the advocates of the petitioner and the respondent who had been appearing before him during the reference that he had published and signed his award on July 14, 1943. He again gave a notice on March 3, 1944, to the parties themselves of the fact of his having made and published the award. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to have the award taken off the file is that it is out of time under Article 178 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. The first contention raised by Mr. M.V. Desai is that the notice given by the arbitrator on J...
D.R. Shahapure Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1944
Reported in: [1946]14ITR781(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question submitted to the Court is in these terms :-'Whether the sum of Rs. 280 is income arising from assets remaining the property of the assessee, and as such whether it has to be deemed, under the first part of clause (1)(c) of Section 16 of the Income-tax Act, to be the income of the assessee ?'The income in question arises by virtue of an entry which the assessee made in his business books on 6th May, 1937. The relevant parts of that entry are as follows :'To-day I am making a family arrangement for my own good. All my estate belongs to me and is acquired by me and hence no one has a claim on this estate except me. I have got full right to dispose of this estate or make some arrangement about it as I like.'The assessee then states that his first four wives are dead and that he is to marry again. He states that his age is 61 years. He then continues that at the time he made arrangements with th...
Shapurji Pallonji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom238; (1945)47BOMLR174
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question referred to us is this:Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal in this case, the Income-tax Officer is by reason of the registration under Section 26A of the instrument of partnership dated November 15, 1937, prevented or estopped from taxing in the hands of the assessee profits representing the share of ten annas and eight pies in full?2. The applicant and his brother, Mr. P.P. Mistry, were partners in a firm of building contractors under a partnership, dated September 24, 1929. On November 15, 1937, they and the applicant's son entered into a deed of that date. An examination of the deed shows that it contained a recital which states:And Whereas from the 15th day of November 1937 the parties of the first and second parts took the party of the third part as a partner in the said business and whereas the parties are desirous of recording by these presents the constituti...
Shapurji Pallonji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR113(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question referred to us is this :'Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal in this case, the Income-tax Officer is by reason of the registration under Section 26-A of the instrument of partnership dated November 15, 1937, prevented or estopped from taxing in the hands of the assessee profits representing the share of ten annas and eight pies in full ?'The applicant and his brother, Mr. P. P. Mistry, were partners in a firm of building contractors under a partnership, dated September 24, 1929. On November 15, 1937, they and the applicants son entered into a deed of that date. As examination of the deed shows that it contained a recital which states'And whereas from the 15th day of November 1937 the parties of the first and second parts took the party of the third part as a partner in the said business and whereas the parties are desirous of recording by these presents the constitution of the ...
Ramji Keshavji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom254; (1945)47BOMLR169
Kania, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The relevant facts are these. The assessee had a son Shivji by his first wife, a son Vassanji by his second wife, his third wife Kamalabai and three sons and three daughters by the said wife. Disputes arose in the family about the rights of the adult sons, and High Court Suit No. 1836 of 1936 was filed by Vassanji against the assessee and the other members of the family claiming that all the estate in the hands of the assessee was joint family property and the parties were entitled to their rights on that footing. After the litigation had gone on for some time, a consent decree was taken on December 23, 1938. Under that consent decree it was inter alia declared that all the properties in the possession of the assessee were his self-acquired properties. It was further declared that in respect of the Ulster Road house in Bombay a trust deed should be executed in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »