Mumbai Court September 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.
Emperor Vs. Mustaffa Joosab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom325; (1947)49BOMLR144
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Additional Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The complainant Aboobakar is a dealer in vegetable ghee, and on November 20, 1944, he received 159 drums of vegetable ghee from the Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. As there was not sufficient room in his own godown, he kept some of those drums in the godown of Abdul Razak at Musapherkhana. On the next day the police raided that godown, but being satisfied that no offence had been committed they took no further action against the complainant. The accused Abdul Gani who is not on good terms with the complainant wanted to bring him into disrepute by giving publicity to this incident in a different light. So about November 21, 1944, he went to Iqbal, a reporter of the Times of India, and told him that the police of Crime Branch II had raided a godown at Musapherkhana and seized a large number of tins o...
In Re: Haridas Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom299; (1946)48BOMLR905
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. Before embarking upon circumstances of this reference, I desire to draw. attention to the fact, that as long ago as August 16, 1940, the assessee made a petition for this matter to be referred, but in fact no reference was made until April 11, 1946, that is to say for a period of 5| years. No explanation is forthcoming as to why a delay of this magnitude should have taken place. It is a very shocking thing, that an assessee, who under the Indian Income-tax Act has to pay the full amount claimed, should have his petition to refer a qiiestion to the Court delayed in this way, and we draw the attention of the authorities concerned to it in the hope that such a delay will not occur again.2. The assessment year is the year 1939-40 in respect of the accounting year which is the Samvat year 1994, that is to say, in respect of the period November 4, 1937, to October 23, 1938. Mr. Haridas Purshottam, who was the assessee, lias, during the course of the long delay, die...
In Re: Lady Navajbai Tata
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom331; (1947)49BOMLR66
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 :Whether in the circumstances of this case the remuneration of Rs. 40,000 received by the assessee from Messrs. Tata Sons Ltd. in the year of account is salary chargeable under Section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?2. The assessment year was the year 1942-43, in respect of the accounting year, which is the calendar year 1941, in which year the sum of Us. 40,000 was received by the assessee in respect of her remuneration as a director of Tata Sons, Limited. This sum is made up of remuneration at the rate of Rs. 100 per month, and in addition, Rs. 38,800, being the assessee's share in the remuneration voted to the directors on May 5, 1941, at an annual general meeting of the company, pursuant to the power in that behalf contained in Article 97 of the company's articles. The articles so far as material are as follows:-3. Article 92 provides, that the number ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Lady Navajbai R. J. TatA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR8(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act and the question referred to us is :-Whether in the circumstances of this case the remuneration of Rs. 40,000 received by the assessee from Messrs. Tata Sons Ltd., in the year of account is salary chargeable under Section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?The assessment year was the year 1942-43, in respecting of the accounting year, which is the calendar year 1941, in which year the sum of Rs. 40,000 was received by the assessee in respect of her remuneration as a director of Tata Sons Limited. This sum is made of remuneration at the rate of Rs. 100 per month, and in addition, Rs. 38,800, being the assessees share in the remuneration voted to the directors on the 5th of May, 1941, at an annual general meeting of the company, pursuant to the power in that behalf contained in article 97 of the companys articles. The articles so far as material are as follows :-Article 92 provides that the number of directors of t...
Haridas Purshottam in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR124(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - Before embarking upon the circumstances of this reference, I desire to draw attention to the fact, that as long ago as the 16th August, 1940, the assessee made a petition for this matter to be referred, but in fact no reference was made until the 11th of April, 1946, that is to say for a period of 5 1/2 years. No explanation is forthcoming as to why a delay of this magnitude should have taken place. It is a very shocking thing, that an assessee, who under the Indian Income-tax Act has to pay the full amount claimed, should have his petition to refer a question to the Court delayed in this way, and we draw the attention of the authorities concerned to it in the hope that such a delay will not occur again.The assessment year is the year 1939-40 respect of the accounting year which is the Samvat year 1994, that is to say, in respect of the period 4th of November, 1937, to the 23rd of October, 1938. Mr. Haridas Purshottam, who was the assessee, has, during the course of the l...
S.C. Cambatta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR61
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the questions, which under order of this Court of March 29, 1945, have been submitted by the Tribunal, are these:(1) Whether on the facts proved there was any evidence to support the conclusion that the money paid for the purchase of 1,245 shares belonged solely to the assessees(2) Whether in a case in which the provisions of Section 23 A have been applied, the proportionate share in the undistributed profits of the company must be taxed in the hands of the shareholders in whose name the shares stood and nobody else ?2. Section 23A creates what might be described as an artificial income. It is as follows:-(i) Where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that in respect of any previous year the profits and gains distributed as dividends by any company up to the end of the sixth month after its accounts for that previous year are laid before the company in general meeting are less tha...
Habib and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR200
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This reference made to us under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raises a very short point. By a decision of this Court, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ekbal & Co. (1944) 47 Bom. L.R. 181 it was held that a notice given pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which requires an assessee to make his return 'within 30 days', was not a compliance with the sub-section and was an invalid notice. Thereafter, in order to validate all the income-tax notices given in the form referred to in that case, the Governor General in exercise of his emergency powers under Section 72 of the Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act promulgated two Ordinances upon which the titles were bestowed of the 'Income-tax and Excess Profit Tax (Validity of Notices) Ordinance, 1944' and 'the Income-tax and the Excess Profits Tax (Validity of Notices) (Amendment) Ordinance 1945,' the conjoint effect of these two Ordinances is stated to be thatFor the remo...
Emperor Vs. Abidalli Jafferbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom465; (1947)49BOMLR336
Sen, J.1. The two applicants have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence punishable under Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules and applicant No. 1 (accused No. 1) has also been convicted under Rule 81 (a), Clause (a) read with Rule 121 of the said rules. The prosecution case was as follows. On April 3, 1945, a Police Sub-Inspector went to the head office of the Bombay Electric Supply and Tramways Company and saw leaflets being distributed there which were addressed to the members of the B.B.S.T. Workers Union and which bore the signature of accused No. 1, the President, and of accused No. 2, the General Organiser of the said Union. It was stated therein that there was a hartal all over India on the said date in order that 'the youths of Chimur and Ashti (who were under the sentence of death) might not be hanged,' and all workers of the B.B.S.T. Co. were requested to join in the said hartal for ten minutes from 6 to 6-10 p.m. In consequence of the said inst...
S. C. Cambatta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR748(Bom)
STONE C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question which under order of this Court of the 29th March, 1945, have submitted by the Tribunal are these :-(1) Whether on the facts proved there was any evidence to support the conclusion that the money paid for the purchase of 1,245 shares belonged solely to the assessee.(2) Whether in a case in which the provisions of Section 23A have been applied, the proportionate share in the undistributed profits of the company must be taxed in the hands of the shareholders in whose name the shares stood and nobody else.Section 23A created what might be described as an artificial income. It is as follows :-'Where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that in respect of any previous year the profits and gains distributed as dividends by any company up to the end of the sixth month after its accounts for that previous year are laid before the company in general meeting are less than sixty per cent. of the ass...
Habib and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR132(Bom)
STONE, C.J. - This reference made to us under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises a very short point. By a decision of this Court, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ekbal & Co., it was held that a notice given pursuant to Section 22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which requires an assessee to make his return 'within thirty days,' was not a compliance with the sub-section and was an invalid notice. Thereafter, in order to validate all the income-tax notices given in the form referred to in that case, the Governor-General in exercise of his emergency powers under Section 72 of the Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act promulgated two Ordinance upon which the titles were bestowed of the 'Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax (Validity of Notices) Ordinance, 1944' and the 'Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax (Validity of Notices) Amendment Ordinance, 1945.' The conjoint effect of these two Ordinances is stated to be that 'for the removal of doubts it is hereby enacted that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »