Mumbai Court March 1946 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.
Dareppa Alagouda Vs. Mallappa Shivalingappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR174
Lokur, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are not in dispute. The plaintiff's father Shidramappa mortgaged his two lands, Survey Nos. 383/1 and 383/1A, to the defendant Dareppa for Us. 400 on June 24, 1929. Out of these two lands, Survey No. 383/1A was rayatawa, and Survey No. 383/1 was watan inam which could not be alienated beyond the lifetime of Shidramappa. The defendant filed suit No. 359 of 1935 against the mortgagor Shidramappa to recover the amount due on the mortgage by sale of the two mortgaged lands. During the pendency of the suit, Shidramappa died and the plaintiff was brought on record as his legal representative on October 26, 1926. The suit ended in a decree for Rs. 706 with costs and future interest payable by instalments, and it directed that in case of default the mortgaged lands or a sufficient portion thereof should be sold and the amount realised. On a default in the payment of the instalments, the defendant executed the decree and both the lands were ...
N.V. Khandvala and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom89; (1946)48BOMLR525
Kania, J.1. This rule is taken out by the petitioners inviting the Court to raise four questions of law mentioned in the rule.2. The assessees are stock brokers. They were assessed for Samvat year 1993 (November 15, 1936, to November 3, 1937) by the Income-tax Officer on their total estimated income and ordered to pay Rs. 16,07,622 under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The amount was reduced on appeal to the Tribunal, by about four lakhs. It was pointed out before the Income-tax Officer that the books of account kept by the assessees were not reliable. It was further contended that the method of accounting adopted by the assessees did not correctly show their profits and income, and therefore under the proviso to s.. 1? of the Income-tax Act the computation had to be made upon such basis and in such manner as the Income-tax Officer might determine. The assessees contended that this did not entitle the Income-tax Officer to adopt any unjust or arbitrary method. The assessees...
Bhimji Naik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR526
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This reference was before this Court on September 29, 1944, when we decided that upon the true construction of Sub-section 4A(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which deals with the question of residence of a Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons, the control and management therein mentioned must be de facto control and management and not de jure control and management and we sent this matter back to the Tribunal to find the necessary facts (see Bhimji Naik v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay (1944) 47 Bom. L. H. 187 The assessee firm in this case admittedly carries on its business in South Africa. The suggestion of the Commissioner was and is that Rao Bahadur Naik, who founded the business and returned to live in India, still retains the control and, management of its affairs. Sub-section (b) of Section 4A of the Indian Income-tax Act provides:For the purposes of this Act-(b) A Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of person...
Bhimji R. Naik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom24; [1946]14ITR334(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This reference was before this Court on the 29th of September 1944 when we decided that upon the true construction of sub-section 4-A(b) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the question of residence of a Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons, the control and management therein mentioned must be do facto control and management and not de jure control and management and we sent this matter back to the Tribunal to find the necessary facts (see B.R. Naik v. Commissioner of Income-tax). The assessee firm in this case admittedly carries on its business in South Africa. The suggestion of the Commissioner was and is that Rao Bahadur Naik, who founded the business and returned to live in India, still retains the control and management of its affairs. Sub-section (b) of Section 4-A of the Income-tax Act provides :-'For the purposes of this Act -(b) A Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is resident in British India unless the contr...
N. Vs. Khandvala V. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR635(Bom)
KANIA, J. - This rule is taken out by the petitioners inviting the Court to raise four questions of law mentioned in the rule.The assessees are stock-brokers. They were assessed for Samvat year 1993 (November 15, 1936, to November 3, 1939) by the Income-tax Officer on their total estimated income and ordered to pay Rs. 16,07,622 under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The amount was reduced on appeal to the Tribunal by about four lakhs. It was pointed our before the Income-tax Officer that the books of account kept by the assessees were not reliable. It was further contended that the method of accounting adopted by the assessees did not correctly show their profits and income, and therefore under the proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act the computation had to be made upon such basis and in such manner as the Income-tax Officer might determine. The assessees contended that this did not entitle the Income-tax Officer to adopt any unjust or arbitrary method. The assessees...
The Governor General in Council Vs. Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR483
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent company prior to being wound up, as hereinafter mentioned, carried on the business of proprietors of sugar; mills in the Basti District of the United Provinces. The company was believed to have made some profits for the year ending May 30, 1940, but it was not until February 25, 1943, that an order for assessment of income-tax was made for the year of assessment 1941-42, and the tax was eventually fixed at Rs. 18,493-12-0. In the meantime, however, a petition to wind up the company had been presented on November 26, 1941, a provisional liquidator had been appointed on December 7, 1941, and finally, on April 17, 1942, a winding up order had been made by the High Court at Allahabad. It will be noticed therefore that the company had been ordered to be wound up a very considerable time before the assessment was made. On March 10, 1943, a notice of demand was served on the Official Liquidators of the respondent company under Section 29 of the Indian...
Onkar Bhika Vs. Vithal Onkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR817
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of survey No. 1. plot No. 2, of the village Valwadi, purchased by the plaintiff at an auction held in execution of his own mortgage decree against the minor defendant. The defendant's father mortgaged the land to the plaintiff in 1921 and died in April 1929, leaving behind his old mother Zumkabai, his young wife Sonabai, aged about 17 or 18, and a minor son, the defendant. The land was then transferred in the Record of Rights to the name of the minor defendant, represented by his grandmother Zumkabai as his guardian. His mother's brother Badhu made an application to the District Court that Zumkabai was too old to manage the property, and he was appointed as the defendant's guardian in December 1929. One Bhivsan stood surety for him and the guardian certificate was duly granted to him, but Zumkabai continued in possession of the defendant's property, as Badhu lived at Pasthe, 45 miles away from Valwadi, In 1932 Zumkabai ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay Vs. L. Armstrong Smith.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR606(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to us is :-'Whether on the facts of the case the sum of Rs. 48,000 received by the assessee from Messrs. Armstrong Smith Ltd., is income from salary chargeable under Section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The assessment year in this case is the year 1943-44 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1943. There is no question but that this Rs. 48,000 is taxable; the only point is whether it falls to be taxed under Section 7 or under Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act.From the agreed statement of facts, it appears that the assessee, Mr. L. Armstrong Smith, was carrying on a business as general merchant and commission agent till 18th June, 1941, when his business was taken over by a private limited company of Armstrong Smith Limited. The company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913) on 24th June, 1941. Mr. Armstrong Smith holds most of the shares of the comp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Raipur Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom54; (1946)48BOMLR517
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under the conjoint effect of Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act and Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and relates to the computation for the purposes of excess profits tax to he made in the case of. the assessee company.2. The first schedule to the Excess Profits Tax Act contains the rules for the computation of profits for the purpose of excess profits tax and the second schedule contains rules for computing the average amount of the capital employed in the business concerned. In order to make calculations for excess profits tax in any case four elements have to be considered. First, the profits for what the Act describes as the standard period; secondly, the capital on. which such standard period profit was made; thirdly, the profits for the chargeable accounting period; and fourthly, the capital employed in the chargeable accounting period to make those profits; and, it is by comparing the first and the second with the th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay, Vs. Raipur Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR725(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under the conjoint effect of Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act and Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and relates to the computation for the purposes of excess profits tax to be made in the case of the assessee company.The first Schedule to the Excess Profits Tax Act contains the rules for the computation of profits for the purpose of excess profits tax and the second Schedule contains rule for computing the average amount of the capital employed in the business concerned. In order to make calculations for excess profits tax in any case four elements have to be considered. First, the profits for what the Act describes as the standard period; secondly, the capital on which such standard period profit was made; thirdly, the profits for the chargeable accounting period; and fourthly, the capital employed in the chargeable accounting period to make those profits; and, it is by comparing the first and the second with the third and the fourth ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »