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.
Babulal Kanji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR505
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to us is, whether, upon the facts found by the Tribunal, the sum of Rs. 5,276 is a permissible deduction under Section 15(1) of the-Indian Income-tax Act. The sum of Rs. 5,276 represents the larger sum of Rs. 5,813, being the total annual premium of the policy of insurance to which I am about to refer. The sum of Rs. 5,813 has been scaled down to Rs. 5,276, because the assessee has another insurance policy and the premiums on the two policies added together exceed the total exemption allowed by the Income-tax Act. The question as framed in this reference in substance raises two questions of law for our consideration, first, has there been an insurance on the life of the assessee, and, if so, secondly, what was the amount of the animal premium paid in the accounting year, which is 1942-43, for effecting such insurance. The relevant section of the Act provides: 15. (1) '...
The Loyal Motor Service Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom15; (1946)48BOMLR513
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to us under Section 66(J) of the Indian Income-tax Act, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay. The assessment out of which the question arises is the assessment upon, the Loyal Motor Service Co., Ltd., in respect of the financial year 1943/44 of that company, and the question formulated is in these terms:Whether in the circumstances of the ease the sum of Us. 4,130 paid as bonus to the shareholder employees of the assessee company in the account year is allowable as deduction under the provisions of Section 10 (2) (a:) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?2. The question raised is a short one but it is not one which is free from difficulty. The Indian Income-tax Act provides by Section 6 for five heads of income, profits or gains to be brought to tax and the first head is 'Salaries' whilst the fourth is 'Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation,'3. It is Section 7 which deals with salaries and it is to be noted th...
Babulal Kanji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom59; [1946]14ITR662(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to us is, whether, upon the facts found by the Tribunal, the sum of Rs. 5,276 is a permissible deduction under Section 15(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The sum of Rs. 5,276 represents the larger sum of Rs. 5,813, being the total annual premium of the policy of insurance to which I am about to refer. The sum of Rs. 5,813 has been scaled down to Rs. 5,276, because the assessee has another insurance policy and the premiums on the two policies added together exceed the total exemption allowed by the Income-tax Act. The question as framed in this reference in substance raises two questions of law for our consideration, first, has there has been an insurance on the life of the assessee, and, if so, secondly, what was the amount of the annual premium paid in the accounting year, which is 1942-43, for effecting such insurance. The relevant section of the Act provides :-'15. (1) The tax ...
Bhiku Appa Kura Vs. Dattatraya Chandrayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom392; (1947)49BOMLR87
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal by the receiver of the estate of the insolvent Bhiku Appa Kura against the order of remand passed by the Assistant Judge of Sholapur under the following circumstances, Bhiku sold his shop to the respondent Dattatraya for Rs. 12,000 on December 15, 1930. The consideration was made up of Rs. 5,000 due as past debts after certain remission, and Rs, 7,000 paid in cash at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Within a week after the execution of the sale deed, an application for insolvency was made on December 23, 1930, and Bhiku was adjudged insolvent on June 27, 1931 The receiver of his estate made an application, under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have the sale set aside on the ground that it was fraudulent and intended to give preference to the respondent. The sale was set aside on March 26, 1934, and the order was confirmed in appeal on August 5, 1935. The second appeal to the High Court was dismissed. Thereafter on August 2...
Bhimsen Hanmant Vs. the Urban Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom370; (1947)49BOMLR160
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings and raises one short question of law under Section 59(1) (a) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (Bom. VII of 1925). The Urban Bank at Muddebihal obtained an award against the appellant and five other persons under Section 54 of the Societies Act. A dispute having arisen between the bank and the said persons it was referred for decision to a nominee of the Registrar, and the award in question was passed by him on September 21, 1930. Under the award the debtors were directed to pay Rs. 451-3-0 with future interest at 121/2 per cent. per year on Rs. 270. Under Section 59 (1) (a) a certificate was issued by the Registrar on October 25, 1930, and the bank put the said award into execution by filing darkhast No. 196 of 1932 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Muddebihal. This darkhast was filed on February 19, 1932, but since no steps were taken by the bank to pay the requisite process fee for the warrant...
Muppanna Malkappa Humbi Vs. Shree Gajanan Urban Co-operative Bank, Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom375; (1947)49BOMLR168
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers, Dharwar, reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Haveri in Suit No. 139 of 1941. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs' suit but the First Class Subordinate Judge reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs in both Courts. The plaintiffs have now come in second appeal.2. In Suit No. 139 of 1941, out of which this second appeal arises, the facts were these. On September 1, 1929, Shri Gajanan Urban Co-operative Bank, Limited, Byadgi, (defendant in this case) obtained an award against one Shidlingappa and others (plaintiffs) under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. Under Section 59 of the said Act, the bank obtained a certificate from the Registrar to execute the award in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Haveri. After having obtained the certificate, it filed darkhast No. 404 of 1930 in the Haveri Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›