Mumbai Court August 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.
Govindram Bros. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR899
1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question which we are asked, in our advisory capacity, to express an opinion upon, is whether, the loss which was incurred by the assessee company and which was attributable to speculation in silver, can he set off, in the following year, against the income, profits and gains in speculation in cotton, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. That sub-section provides that such a set-off, in a subsequent year, can only be made against income, profits and gains from 'the same business'.2. The question as framed by the Tribunal 'in the original case was:Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 71,008 in silver speculation carried forward from the assessment for 1940-41 against the profits from speculation in New York cotton considered in the assessment for 1941-42, under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, ...
Messrs. Govindram Bros. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom247; [1946]14ITR764(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, and the question which we are asked, in our advisory capacity, to express an opinion upon, is whether the loss which was incurred by the assessee company and which was attributable to speculation in silver can be set off, in the following year, against the income, profits and gains in speculation in cotton, having regard to the provisions of sub-section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act. That sub-section provides that such a set off in a subsequent year can only be made against income, profits and gains from 'the same business.'The question as framed by the Tribunal in the original case was :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 71,008 in silver speculation carried forward from the assessment for 1940-41 against the profits from speculation in New York cotton considered in the assessment for 1941-42, under Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1939 ?'Sub...
Gangaram Govind Pashankar Vs. Sardar K.R. Vinchurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR757
Macklin, J.1. These three applications relate to the modification of a scheme which was framed on appeal by this Court. In effect it is the scheme of the Court, and in view of the fact that the scheme itself contains no clause giving liberty to apply for a modification of the scheme, a preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. The matter is not free from difficulty. In support of the application we have been referred to certain remarks of various learned Judges to the effect that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to entertain an application of this sort, even though the scheme does not provide for liberty to apply in such a matter. But the difficulty of following those decisions blindly lies in the fact that they do not refer to Order XX, Rule 3, which has the effect of preventing Courts from altering their own decrees except in accordance with the provisions of Section 152 or the rules relating to review;...
New India Assurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom251; (1946)48BOMLR893
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This matter came before my learned brother Sir Harilal Kania and myself on November 10, 1944, when we sent the reference back to the Tribunal to ascertain certain additional and necessary facts. We then pointed out that the Tribunal had made an incorrect approach to Rules 2(b) and 3(a) of the schedule to the Income-tax Act to which I will presently refer. The point which arises when analysed resolves itself into an extremely narrow one. By Section 10(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act, it is provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18, the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable thereon shall he computed in accordance with the rules contained in the schedule to the Act. Turning to the schedule it will he found that Rule 1 provides;In the ease of any person who carries on, or at any time in the preceding year carried on life insurance business, the profits and gains of such person from...
New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR809(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This matter came before my learned brother Sir Harilal Kania and myself on the 10th of November, 1944, when we sent the reference back to the Tribunal to ascertain certain additional and necessary facts. We then pointed out that the Tribunal had made an incorrect approach to rules 2(b) and 3 (a) of the Schedule to the Income-tax Act to which I will presently refer. The point which arises when analysed resolves itself into an extremely narrow one. By Section 10(7) of the Income-tax act, it is provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12, or 18, the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable there on shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the Schedule to the Act. Turning to the Schedule it will be found that rule 1 provides :-'In the case of any person who carries on, or at any time in the preceding year carried on, life insurance business, the profits and gains of such person from tha...
Robasa Khanum Vs. Khodadad Bomanji Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom272; (1946)48BOMLR864
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. I have read the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I am in entire agreement with it and have nothing to add.Chagla, J.2. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden. The suit was filed by a Muslim woman against her Zoroastrian husband for dissolution of marriage. The parties were married in 1927 in Iran according to the Zoroastrian law. In the plaint as originally filed the only ground on which a decree for dissolution of marriage was sought was desertion of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaint was subsequently amended and a further ground was alleged, namely, that the plaintiff had ceased to be a Zoroastrian and had become a Muslim and that the defendant had declined to become a Muslim and was still continuing to be a Zoroastrian. It was therefore submitted that the plaintiff's marriage with the defendant was dissolved and a declaration was sought to that effect. The suit proceeded ex parie before Mr. Justice Blagd...
Jessingbhai Jagjivandas Vs. Jivatlal Pratapsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom487; (1947)49BOMLR428
Blagden, J.1. This is a motion by the plaintiffs in a suit brought with the leave of the learned Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code against four defendants. But for a mere accident there would have been five defendants. With regard to the 5th person who was omitted from the list of the defendants the plaintiffs' attorneys, I understand, received back the registered envelope in which they had placed their letter before action with the gloomy word 'dead' written on it by some postal authority. After the sanction of the Advocate General was obtained and after the suit was commenced it transpired that this statement by the postman was 'grossly exaggerated', and the man was in fact alive and well. In these circumstances the plaintiffs approached the Prothonotary yesterday and obtained from him leave to amend the plaint by adding the person who now appears as the 5th defendant. I am going to say as little as I can about the merits of the case, which have not been d...
The Official Assignee Vs. Madholal Sindhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom217; (1946)48BOMLR828
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated September 17, 1945.2. In the action the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 in this Court, sought a declaration and consequential relief with the object of establishing that certain alleged liens claimed by and in favour of the Asian Assurance Company, Ltd., (defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to this appeal) upon 26,000 shares in that company do not attach to the shares. The Official Assignee (defendant No. 5 and the appellant in this Court) filed a counter-claim for redemption of the shares claiming that the equity of redemption was vested in him as trustee of the property of Mr. Meyer Nissim who was adjudicated an insolvent on July 16, 1940. In the Court below, the plaintiff was successful in his claim, and the learned Judge granted him certain relief against which there is no appeal, but the Official Assignee's counter-claim was dismissed with costs, and it is against that dismissal that this app...
Dinkerrai Lalit Kumar Vs. Sukhdayal Rambilas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom293; (1946)48BOMLR821
Chagla, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee. On June 26, 1942, the defendants sold to the plaintiffs 33 bales of piecegoods or 36 bales, three bales more according to the option of the defendants. In all delivery was given of 22 bales between July 3, and August 21, 1942. The defendants, according to the plaintiffs, failed to give delivery of the remaining 11 bales, and the plaintiffs have fled this suit for damages for non-delivery of the 11 bales. Mr. Justice Coyajee who tried the suit held that the defendants had committed a breach of the contract and that they had failed to give delivery of the 11 bales; and he referred the suit to the Commissioner to assess the damages on the basis that the breach had taken place on November 12, 1942, and that damages should be assessed at the difference between the market rate prevailing on that date and the contract rate. The plaintiffs' case was that they had made various demands for delivery. They proved two oral dem...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay Vs. Narottam Pereira Ltd., Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR793(Bom)
CHAGLA, J. - The question raised by the Tribunal on this reference is whether, upon the facts found by the Tribunal, the assessee company is one in which the directors had a controlling interest within the meaning of Section 2(21)(a) of the Excess Profits Tax Act and rule 7(1) of Schedule I to that Act.This reference came before me and my learned brother Mr. Justice Kania on the 19th September, 1945, and we sent the reference back to the Tribunal under Section 66(4) of the Act and requested them to record their findings on the three questions which we raised. The three questions were :-(1) Who are the directors of the respondent Company (2) What is the interest in fact of each of the directors in the respondent company and (3) Whether the Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited and/or Mrs. Nanavati are the directors of the respondent company as contended by the respondent assessee ?The supplementary statement of the Tribunal is now before us and they have answered the three questions ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »