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.
Kikabhoy Chandabhoy Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR677
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assesses 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 Fatima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in samvat year 1994 (1938-39) under an instrument dated October 13, 1938. Kikabhoy died on March 22, 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated March 29, 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from April 1, 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 October 30; 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) o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Mysore Iron and Steel Work ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR478(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Section 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act and the facts necessary to be stated are that the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assessee on the March 16, 1946. The assessee wanted to prefer an appeal against that assessment, and the appeal was received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, on the June 3, 1946.Now under section 30 a statutory right is given to the assessee to prefer an appeal against an order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer; but a time limits is prescribed within which the appeal has to be preferred, and that time limit is thirty days. Therefore admitedly when the appeal was presented, the appeal was out of time. On that, the assessee made an application to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay and declined to entertain the appeal. From this order of the A...
Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom377; [1949]17ITR520(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - 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 subjected to tax.The company came to receive these two sums in these circumstances. A fire broke out in the companys mills on January 18, 1944, with the result that the buildings, etc., were destroyed and there was a cesation of the manufacturing activities of the company. The company had taken out a policy with the South India Fire and General Insurance Company, Ltd., and with other insurance companies of the nature known as 'Consequential Loss Policies.' These policies idemnified 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 profits because...
Kikabhoy Chandabhoy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: [1949]17ITR523(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessee are a restored 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 Fatima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in Samvat year, 1944 (1938-39) under an instrument dated October 13, 1938. Kikabhoy died on March 22, 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated March 29, 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from April1, 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of the Abbashabi Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on October 30, 1942.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) of the A...
Orient Corporation, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1949
Reported in: [1950]18ITR28(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that is raised in this reference is really covered by the decision which my brother and I gave and which is reported in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay city. In that case we held that if a mercantile system of accounting is adopted and a certain liability is allowed by the Income-tax department as a permissible deduction, and if subsequently that liability is discharged not by actual payment by the assessee but by remission of liability by the creditor, then the remission of liability can never be considered as an income which would be liable to tax. The facts here are almost identical. The assessee who dealt in shares in curred a loss of Rs. 22,027 in forward share dealings. This loss was duly adjusted against the business receipts in the assessment for the year 1943-44 which meant that the department accepted the sum of Rs. 22,027 as a permissible deduction. In the subsequent year this liability was settled by the assessee paying...
Joy Chand Lal Babu Vs. Kamalaksha Chaudhury
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR964
Orders passed in revision do not fall within Section 109(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 100S. Section 109(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1008, is wide enough to cover an appeal from; an order made in revision.Although error in a decision of a subordinate Court does not by itself involve that the subordinate Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to justify interference in revision under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, nevertheless if the erroneous decision results in the subordinate Court exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, of failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a ease for revision arises under Sub-section (b) or Sub-section. (6) of Section 115 of the Code, and Sub-section (c) of the section can be ignored.Babu Ram v. Munna Lal I.L.R. (1927) All. 454 and Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath I.L.R. (1885) Bom. 432 disapproved.Rajah Amir Hussan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1884) L.R. 11 IndAp 237 and Balakrishna Udayar v. Vusude...
Mallappa Rachappa Shetgan and ors. Vs. Shivappa Tammanna Hadnur and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom71
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether a permanent lease executed by the mortgagor during the pendency of a simple mortgage binds the mortgagee or persons claiming through him. This question arises in this way :2. In the present suit the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they were entitled to a two-thirds share in the right of occupation and enjoyment of 7 acres in S. No. 69 at Torvi and to a 4/9ths share in the mango and other fruit trees therein. They had also claimed an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing them in the enjoyment of the said rights. The plaintiffs' case was that they had been in possession of these properties as permanent tenants since as far back as 1889. Alternatively they alleged that a permanent lease had been executed in their favour by the Jahagirdars of Darga who were the owners of this property in May 1911. At this time the property was subject to two simple mortgages which had been executed by the ...
Yusuf H. Abbas Vs. Bhagwandas P. Nangpal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom346; (1949)51BOMLR523
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai. and it arises out of a suit filed by a broker against his constituent to recover a sum of money due in respect of various transactions put through by the broker on the Stock Exchange. The only dispute between the parties in the suit was with regard to a transaction of 15 Bombay Dyeing shares. It would appear that on December 10, 1946, the defendant had given instructions to the plaintiff to sell these 15 Bombay Dyeing shares. The plaintiff's case was that on January 2, 1947, the defendant gave him instructions to make a badla of this transaction, and pursuant thereto he purchased 15 shares on January 3 and sold 15 shares on January 7, with the result that there was an outstanding transaction of sale of 15 shares for the settlement which ended on January 16, 1947, and as the defendant did not pay to the broker moneys that were due to him, he closed this transaction on January 16, 1947. As against this the defend...
Nagarmal Surajmal Vs. Gotulal Laxminarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom348; (1949)51BOMLR525
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee dismissing a summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiffs on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant against whom the summons was taken out contended that he was a resident of Chalisgaon, that he was: a debtor within the meaning of Act XXVIII of 1947, and, therefore, this Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit.2. Mr. Desai on behalf of the plaintiffs has argued before us that in view of the fact that Act XXVIII of 1947 is not applicable to the City of Bombay, and this suit having been filed on the Original Side of the High Court, this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the fact that the defendant might be a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act. Turning to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the Act was enacted for the purpose of giving relief to agricultural debtors in the Province of Bombay, and one excepti...
Emperor Vs. Fakirmahomed Currimji Lalji Sajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom373; (1949)51BOMLR573
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of the Province of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Eslpanade, Bombay, acquitting the opponent under Section 9(7) of the Bombay Smoke Nuisance Act of 1912 for breach of Rule 26 of the Rules under that Act. It is alleged that in contravention of the provisions of the rule the chimney of the opponent's hotel emitted smoke at the lower altitude than that permitted by the law, on February 10, 13, and 10, 1948, between certain hours as specified in the complaint.2. The opponent, who was the accused before the lower Court, is the proprietor of Pyrke's Apollo Hotel situated in a building known as Bright Land on the Lausdowne Road, Apollo Bunder. On the first floor of that building is the kitchen of the hotel, which is about 12 feet from the ground. In that kitchen there is a cooking range with ovens, and in order to allow the smoke coming up from the ovens to go out there was a chimney...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »