Mumbai Court March 1948 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.
The Executors of the Estate of J. K. Dubash Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR90(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - This assessee are the executors of the estate of J. K. Dubash who died on the 9th April, 1942, having made a will prior thereto on the 8th April, 1942. The executors obtained a probate of the will on the 10th August, 1942. The testator during his lifetime carried on a business of shipping agents and the first question that arises on this reference is at what period of time succession to that business took place within the meaning of Section 25 (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The provision in the will with regard to the carrying on of the business is contained in clause 13 and that directs the executors to carry on the business of the testator as a going concern after his death with power to make fresh contracts and discharge the existing and future liabilities and all other usual and necessary powers unless special circumstances arise which in the opinion of the executors make it expedient to sell the business earlier. This business was to be carried on for a period not...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murlidhar Mathurawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR366
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was carrying on two distinct and separate businesses, one in Bombay and the other at Indore. During the year of account there was profit in the Bombay business, but the business at Indore resulted in a loss amounting to Rs. 1,55,583. The assessee claimed that this loss should be set off against the profits realised in the Bombay business. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the assessee's claim was not sustainable in view of the first proviso to Section 24. The Tribunal differed from the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to set off the loss suffered by him in the Indore business against the profits of the Bombay business.2. Now, the assessee is a person resident in British India, and under Section 4(b)(ii) in his total income he would have to show not only the income which accrued or arose to him in...
Raja of Venkatagiri Vs. Krishnayya Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR517
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree dated March 3, 1941, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which in its appellate jurisdiction affirmed a judgment and decree dated April 27, 1989, of the same High Court in its original jurisdiction.2. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the first plaintiff to enforce payment of money due under a promissory note dated March 29, 1933, executed by the respondent in his favour for Us. 1,50,000 which with interest amounted to Rs. 1,58,725 at the time of the suit, By this instrument the respondent promised to pay on demand a sum of Its. 1,50,000 with interest at 2 per cent, per annum, 'in consideration of the amounts advanced from time to time for the Gollaprole litigation.3. The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the promissory note is supported by 'consideration.' The High Court in its original jurisdiction as well as on appeal answered the question in the negative. The quest...
The High Commissioner for India and the High Commissioner for Pakistan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR649
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Federal Court of India dated May 4, 1945, which varied a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated March 27, 1944.2. The respondent, who had been a member of the Indian Civil Service since 1922, instituted the present suit on July 20, 1942, against the Secretary of State for India, challenging the validity of an order by the latter dated August 10, 1940, which purported to remove the respondent from the Indian Civil Service,3. The Secretary of State for India was the original appellant in this appeal, but, after the hearing before this Board in July last, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, came into operation on August 15, 1947. By Section 15(2) of the Act, the present appeal by the Secretary of State was abated, and by Section 15(2) the appeal was continued by the High Commissioner. By Sub-section (3) of that section, the expression 'the High Commissioner' is defined for the purposes of the section. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR146(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee was carrying on two distinct and separate businesses, one in Bombay and the other at Indore. During the year of account there was profit in the Bombay business, but the business at Indore resulted in a loss amounting to Rs. 1,55,583. The assessee claimed that this loss should be set off against the profits realised in the Bombay business. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that the assessees claim was not sustainable in view of the first proviso to Section 24. The Tribunal differed from the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to set off the loss suffered by him in the Indore business against the profits of the Bombay business.Now, the assessee is a person resident in British India, and under Section 4 (1) (b) (ii) in his total income he would have to show not only the income which accrued or arose to him in Br...
Moshe Rehman Penkar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax (Mofussil)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Bom378; (1948)50BOMLR358
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a businessman having many activities. He used to borrow moneys from one Dharkar and in 1922 he mortgaged certain properties to Dharkar to secure payment of Rs. 17,500 found to be due and owing to Dharkar, The assessee keeps his accounts on accrual basis and in the returns submitted by him from 1932 onwards he claimed, as a permissible deduction, interest which was payable by him on this sum of Rs. 17,500 and those deductions were allowed to him by the Income-tax Department. Up to the year of account with which we are concerned, viz. S.Y. 1999 (October 30, 1943, to October 17, 1944), about Rs. 15,000 had been claimed by the assessee as deductions for interest and allowed to him. The total amount due to Dharkar at the foot of the mortgage was found to be Rs. 29,059-6-6 in the accounting year. On June 24, 1944, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 to Dharkar and Dharkar accepted that amount in full settlement of his claim against the assessee. In other...
Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. Vs. Excess Profits Tax Officer, Iii Circle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR349
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises for decision in this reference is whether the assessee is liable to payment of Excess Profit Tax in respect of sales of goods manufactured in Raichur and sold in British India. The assessee is a firm resident in British India and it is registered with the Income-tax authorities under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee has three mills in Bombay and one in Raichur in Hyderabad (Dn.) State. They purchased groundnuts and then converted them into oil in their mills and sold it. In this reference we are concerned only with regard to the mill in Raichur. Oil is manufactured in this mill but some of it is sold in British India, Now being a resident in British India as far as income-tax is concerned there is no question that the assessee is liable with regard to his income whether it accrues to him within or without British India. But the position is different under the Excess Profits Tax Act (XV of 1940). Under Section 5 that Act...
MohsIn Rehman Penkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR183(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee is a business man having many activities. He used to borrow moneys from one Dharkar and in 1932 he mortgaged certain properties to Dharkar to secure payment of Rs. 17,500 found to be due and owing to Dharkar. The assessee keeps his accounts on accrual basis and in the returns submitted by him from 1932 onwards he claimed, as a permissible deduction, interest which was payable by him on this sum of Rs. 17,500 and those deductions were allowed to him by the department. Up to the year of account with which we are concerned, viz., S. Y. 1999 (30th of October, 1943, to 17th of October, 1944), about fifteen thousand rupees had been claimed by the assessee as deductions for interest and allowed to him. The total amount due to Dharkar on the foot of the mortgage was found to be Rs. 29,059-6-6 in the accounting year. On the 24th of June, 1944, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 to Dharkar and Dharkar accepted that amount in full settlement of his claim against the...
Behramji Sorabji Lalkaka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR320
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Two questions have been raised on this reference and they are concerned with certain income arising to Freny, the daughter of the settlors, under the trust deed dated January 15, 1936. The settlors, who are the assessee and his wife, had three children Freny, Feroza and Phiroz and the trust deed provided that the properties belonging to the settlors which were moveables should be divided into three parts, one for each of the three children of the settlors, and the scheme of the trust deed was that during the lifetime of the settlors the trustee should hold these properties in trust and give the income for the maintenance of the three children of the settlors and the property was to be handed over to these three beneficiaries after the death of the survivor of the settlors. The trust deed made provisions with regard to the death of any of the three beneficiaries before the death of the survivor of the settlors, and Clause 4 deals with Phiroz predeceasing the survivor...
Prince Khanderao Gaekwar of Baroda Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom17; (1948)50BOMLR368
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessees before us are the grandsons of H.H. the Maharaja Sir Sayaji Rao Gaekwad of Baroda. Sir Sayaji Rao created a family trust in April 1905 and he executed a deed of variation on April 13, 1928. Under Clause 6 of the deed of variation each of his two grandsons, the assessees, gets an eighth share in the income of the trust subject to a condition that if their mother Princess Kamaladevi should live separate from them or either of them then and in such a case the trustees should pay Rs. 9,000 per year if she shall live separate from either of them and the sum of Us. 18,000 if she shall live seperate from both of them, and such sums of Rs. 9,000 or Rs. 18,000 as the case may be shall be deducted by the trustees from and out of the income or incomes of the said assessees, from whom Princess Kamaladevi may live separate. Princess Kamaladevi began to live separately from both the assessees from April 1, 1941. On November 5, 1942, both the assessees executed two s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »