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 Accountant General Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR306
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised by this reference is whether the Baroda State is entitled to a refund of income-tax paid by several companies as assessees on their respective total incomes in which the Baroda State is a shareholder. The second question raised refers to the refund of super-tax paid by the companies in which also the Baroda State is a shareholder. 2. Now it cannot be disputed that the Ruler of the Baroda State has certain attributes of sovereignty and as a sovereign he is not subject to the municipal laws of India. Therefore, the Indian Income-tax Act does not apply to him. He is not liable to pay tax on his income and he cannot be treated as an assessee for any purposes under the Income-tax Act. Sir Jamshedji's contention is that the Ruler of the Baroda State has been subjected to taxation contrary to International law. He says that when the companies paid tax on their profits prior to the distribution of dividends they paid tax on behalf of the different shareh...
Harakchand Makanji and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1948Bom401; (1948)50BOMLR315
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The facts which give rise to this reference may be briefly stated. On December 28, 1942, a notice under Section 43 was issued on the applicants, and the firm was declared to be an agent of a non-resident assessee. A notice under Section 84 was also issued on January 11, 1943. On April 2, 1943, the applicants filed their return in respect of the assessment year 1941-42. With regard to the assessment year 1942-43 no notice was served on the applicants but they filed their return on June 18, 1943, admitting that they were an agent and made the return on that basis. It is now contended by Sir Jamshedji on behalf of the applicants that the assessment of the applicants was bad and should be set aside on the ground that no notice was served on them under Section 43 and no notice was served on them under Section 34. The contention is that the mere fact that the applicants were found to be an agent in the assessment year 1941-42 does not lead to the necessary inference that ...
The Accountant-general, Baroda State Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR78(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question raised by this reference is whether the Baroda State is entitled to a refund of income-tax paid by several companies as assesses on their respective total incomes in which the Baroda State is a shareholder. The second question raised refers to the refund of super-tax paid by the companies in which also the Baroda State is a shareholder.Now it cannot be disputed that the Ruler of the Baroda State has certain attributes of sovereignty and as a sovereign he is not subject to the Municipal Laws of India. Therefore, the Indian Income Tax Act does not apply to him. He is not liable to pay tax on his income and he cannot be treated as an assessee for any purposes under the Income-tax Act. Sir Jamshedjis contention is that the Ruler of the Baroda State has been subjected to taxation contrary to International Law. He says that when the companies paid tax on their profits prior to the distribution of dividends they paid tax on behalf of the different shareholders incl...
Harakchand Makanji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR119(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The facts which give rise to this reference may be briefly stated. On the 28th of December, 1942, a notice under Section 43 was issued on the applicants, and the firm was declared to be an agent of a non-resident assessee. A notice under Section 34 was also issued on 11th January, 1943. On the 12th of April, 1943, the applicants filed their return in respect of the assessment year 1941-42. With regard to the assessment year 1942-43 no notice was served on the applicants but they filed their return on the 18th of June, 1943, admitting that they were an agent and made the return on that basis. It is now contended by Sir Jamshedji on behalf of the applicants that the assessment of the applicants was bad and should be set aside on the ground that no notice was served on them under Section 43 and no notice was served on them under Section 34. The contention is that the mere fact that the applicants were found to be an agent in the assessment year 1941-42 does not lead to the ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Navajbai N. Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR304
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This reference is based on the following facts. Bai Navajbai, the assessee, made an oral trust in December 1940 in respect of securities of the face value of five lacs of rupees and the object of the trust was to pay the income to a Parsi Hunnarshala. A deed of trust was executed on August 25, 1943. Before the Tribunal, the Income-tax Department challenged the contention of the assessee that there was an oral trust prior to the execution of the trust deed, but that contention was overruled, and the Tribunal found as a fact that there was an oral trust in December 1940. The question that arises is whether the income received from these securities is exempt from tax or not. The deed of trust contains a clause, Clause 10, which enables the settlor to revoke this trust, either wholly or partially, and it is common ground that the oral trust made by the assessee in December 1940 was also subject to this power of revocation. It is contended by the Advocate General on beha...
Nanalal Zaver Vs. the Bombay Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom36; (1948)50BOMLR413
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati and the facts leading up to it may be briefly summarised. The first defendant company is a limited company which was incorporated in the year 1908. It does life assurance business. Its authorised capital is ten lakhs of rupees divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. In 1945 the total number of shares issued was 5,404 paid up as to Rs. 25. The life fund of the company at the end of December 1948 was Rs. 2,30,000. Defendants Nos. 2 to 9 are the directors of the company and defendant No. 2 is the chairman of the board of directors. It seems that in July 1944 Sir Padampat Singhania in search of fresh financial conquests entered the market and started purchasing shares of this company and these purchases were done through his agents in Bombay. The result of his wanting to purchase shares was to shoot up the price of the shares considerably and the shares which were ordinarily quoted at Rs. 250 went up as much ...
In Re: Pandurang Govind Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom84; (1948)50BOMLR446
Sen, J.1. This is an application by one Pandurang Govind Phatak who was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate at Thana on February 6, 1948, under Section 2(1)(a) of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. That order stated that, whereas the District Magistrate was satisfied that the said person was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the District Magistrate directed that he be detained. In the statement of grounds furnished to the detenu under Section 3 of the Act it was stated:You engage in objectionable and harmful activities and incite people to violence.Under Section 2 the detaining authority has to be satisfied that any person is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, the maintenance of public order, or the tranquillity of the Province or any part thereof, before it can make an order directing that he be detained. The satisfaction, therefore, is of the authority making the order, and the Court is not entitled to consi...
Joharilal Debisahai Agarwal Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ104
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Joharilal was convicted and sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Ha. 800 under Section 379, Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Hs 200 under Section 26 (l) (g), Forest Act, by the First Class Magistrate, Chhindwara ; but in appeal he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, who made the following observations:The whole thing is thus in a confused state. I give benefit of doubt to both the accused and acquit them. I am not ordering a fresh trial There are, however, some aspects of the transaction on which the accused may be retried. The Forest Department may have the legal position examined in the light of material at their disposal and is at liberty to start proceedings against the accused Joharilal, in such matters as have not been the subject-matter of decision in this case.2. The case related to wood, timber and charcoal and the trial Court ordered their forfeiture to His Majesty, but the then Add...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Bai Navajbai N. GamadiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR109(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - This reference is based on the following facts. Bai Navajbai, the assessee, made an oral trust in December 1940 in respect of securities of the face value of five lakhs of rupees and the object of the trust was to pay the income to a Parsi Hunnarshala. A deed of trust was executed on the 25th August, 1943. Before the Tribunal the Department challenged the contention of the assessee that there was an oral trust prior to the execution of the trust deed but that contention was overruled and the Tribunal found as a fact that there was an oral trust in December 1940. The question that arises is whether the income received from these securities is exempt from tax or not. The deed of trust contains a clause, clause 10, which enables the settler to revoke this trust, either wholly or partially, and it is common ground that the oral trust made by the assessee in December 1940 was also subject to this power of revocation. It is contended by the Advocate-General on behalf of the De...
Ramji Karamsi Vs. the Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1948
Reported in: AIR1951Bom347; (1950)52BOMLR703
1. [After narrating facts above summarized, his Lordship proceeded.] The firstpoint which has been seriously agitated before me is whether the plaintiff had an insurable interest in these goods. It was urged by Mr Shelat for the defendants that the plaintiff was merely an agent having no insurable interest in these goods. His employment was merely for the purpose of handling these goods with a view to ship them in a country craft, take out an insurance policy against them and forward the same to his principals Ramdas Vasanji and Ranchhoddas Moolji. Mr. Hathi for the plaintiff, on the other hand urged that the plaintiff was not merely an agent handling the goods in the manner suggested by the defendants. He was a commission agent doing the work of shipping and forwarding agent. He was a bailee or in any event an agent who was instructed and authorised by Eamdas Vasanji and Banchhoddas Moolji to effect the insurance of these goods in his name, that he had in any event an insurable intere...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »