Mumbai Court March 1949 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Nazir and Sons, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR486(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that arises in this reference in whether the assessee are liable to pay a certain penalty imposed upon them by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act.The facts which led up to this reference may be briefly stated. On the January 16, 1940, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22, sub-section (4), of the Income-tax Act for production of certain accounts and documents. The assessee failed to comply with that notice. The assessment of the assessee was completed by the Income-tax Officer on the February 8, 1940, in completing the assessment a note was made by the Income-tax Officer that proceedings should be taken against the assessee under Section 28(1)(a) and (b). On the February 17, 1940, pursuant to that note, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act. Now when the assessment of the assessee was completed, they were not registered as a firm; but on the October 12, 1940, the Income-tax Commissioner ma...
Sir Kasturchand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom1
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee, Sir Kasturchand Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessment years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on 15th November 1941, 26th August 1942 and 23rd August 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882 and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43, and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A (1), Income-tax Act on 20th May 1946 for the previo...
Sir Kasturchand, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR687
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee Sir Kasturchand, Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessment years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on November 15, 1941, August 26, 1942, and August 23, 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now, it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882, and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43, and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act on May 20, 19...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR692
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, the B.B. & C.I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefit Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a Mutual Insurance Association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Section 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules contained in the schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chapter III, you compute them in the man...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Co-operative Mutu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom43
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assesses, the B. B. & C. I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefit Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60, Income-tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a Mutual Insurance Association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Sections 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules contained in the schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore, the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chap. III, you compute them in the manner laid down in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. the B.B. and C.i. Railway ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR509(Bom)
CHANGALA, C.J. - The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, the B.B. & C.I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefits Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60 of the Indian Income tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Section 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules continued in the Schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chapter III, you compute them in the manne...
Sir Kasturchand Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR493(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee, Sir Kasturchand Ltd., is a private limited company and the assessments years under reference are 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44, the relevant previous years being the financial years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The annual general meetings of this company were held respectively on the November 15, 1941, August 26, 1942, and the August 23, 1943, in respect of the three relevant previous years, and in none of these general meetings any dividend was declared and therefore no dividend was distributed. Now it would appear that the profits according to the accounts of the company for the accounting year 1940-41 was Rs. 35,155, for the accounting year 1941-42 was Rs. 29,882 and for the accounting year 1942-43 was Rs. 13,778. On assessment the profits were assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 48,586 for the 1941-42, Rs. 82,233 for 1942-43 and Rs. 61,872 for 1943-44. The Income-tax Officer made an order under Section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act on the May 20, 1...
Kikabhoy Chandabhoy and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom6
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessees are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Kikabhoy Chandabhoy. Kikabhoy Chandabhoy himself was the sole proprietor of this firm and then there were changes in the constitution of that firm. He took Bai Patima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in samvat year 1994 (1938-39) under an instrument dated 13th October 1938. Kikabhoy died on 22nd March 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated 29th March 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from 1st April 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of Abbasbhai Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on 30th October 1942.2. In the assessment of this firm for the year 1942-43 a claim was made that the firm was entitled to relief both with regard to income-tax and super-tax under Section 25 (3) and Section 25 (4)...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Iron and Steel Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom400; (1949)51BOMLR684
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the facts necessary to be stated are that the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assesses on March 16, 1946, and the notice of demand was served on the assesses on April 6, 1946. The assesses wanted to prefer an appeal against that assessment, and the appeal was received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, on June 3, 1946.2. Now under Section 30 a statutory right is given to the assesses to prefer an appeal against an order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, but a time limit is prescribed within which the appeal has to be preferred, and that time limit is thirty days. Therefore admittedly when the appeal was presented, the appeal was out of time. On that, the assesses made an application to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to c...
The Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR675
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the two sums of Rs. 8,25,000 and Rs. 5,75,000 received by the assessee, the Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd., Bombay, on September 8, 1944, and on December 22, 1944, respectively, are subject to tax.2. The company came to receive these two sums in these circumstances. A fire broke out in the company's mills on January 18, 1944, with the result that the buildings, etc, were destroyed and there was a cessation of the manufacturing activities of the company. The company had taken out a policy with the South India Fire and General Insurance Company, Limited, and with other insurance companies of the nature known as 'Consequential Loss Policies.' These policies indemnified the company against any loss of profits which might result as a consequence of any fire that may break out, and it is not disputed before us that these two sums were received by the assessee company as an indemnity for the loss suffered by them of their prof...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »