Mumbai Court March 1950 Judgments
Narottamdas Jethabhai Vs. Aloysious Pinto Phillips
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom180; (1950)52BOMLR571; ILR1951Bom370
Chagla, C.J.1. Four issues relating to jurisdiction have been raised on the summons for judgment taken out by the plaintiff, and they have now come before us for decision.2. The suit in which these issues arise was filed for recovering a sum of Rs. 11,704-5-4, and the main question that we have to consider is whether in view of the notification issued by the Government on 20th January 1950, this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.3. In order to understand and appreciate the contentions raised before us it is necessary to look at the Bombay City Civil Court Act (Bom. Act XL [40] of 1948). That Act was passed by the Bombay Legislature in order to establish an additional Civil Court for Greater Bombay, Section 3 of that Act deals with the constitution of the new Court and provides that:'The Provincial Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish for the Greater Bombay a Court, to be called the Bombay City Civil Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in any la...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Chhotalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom287; (1950)52BOMLR445; [1950]18ITR454(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a firm of guarantee brokers of the Aruna and Saraspur Mills at Ahmedabad. They received brokerage at half per cent on all sales made by the mills. The assessees maintain their accounts on cash basis and they credit in their books of accounts the amounts actually received by them from the mills in respect of their brokerage, and these entries are made when the brokerage is actually paid. For the purposes of income-tax this mode of accounting was accepted by the Department and it is not suggested that this mode of accounting is in any way incorrect or does not enable the Department to truly assess the profits of the assessees. But the contention put forward by the Department and which was accepted by the Tribunal was that whatever might be the position under the Income-tax Act under the Excess Profits Tax Act the assessees cannot maintain their accounts on the cash basis for accounting and they must make their returns for the Excess Profits Tax Act only on...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom295; (1950)52BOMLR441; [1950]18ITR727(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee company is a textile mill and in the assessment years 1940-41 and 1941-42 and in the assessment years prior thereto the company valued its opening stock and the closing stock irrespective of the cost price or the market value and it valued it on a fixed rate basis. The assessment for the two years was made on that basis. Subsequently the department challenged the basis and it attempted to reopen the matter under Section 34, but that attempt failed. When it came to the question of excess profits tax, it assessed the profits for the corresponding charging period on a different basis and the result was that whereas in 1940-41 the income was assessed at Rs. 11,16,664 and in 1941-42 at Rs. 12,15,698, on the other basis the income for 1940-41 was assessed at Rs. 13,31,648 and for the year 1941-42 at Rs. 24,64,646. Having assessed the income on the proper basis as far as the standard period (sic) was concerned, the department assessed the profits during the standa...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. V.S. Phadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1311
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The non-applicants Shri V. 3. Phadke, Shri H. S. Munje and Shri P. B. Gole are members of the Board of Directors of a limited company known as the Central Potteries Ltd,, which manufactures earthenwara articles such as jars, cups and saucers as well as articles of stone. On 33rd November 1946. the Provincial Government issued notification No. 57901434-XXVI in which it referred to the trade dispute between that concern and its employees for adjudication by Shri P. D. Deshmukh, Additional District and Sessions Judge Nagpur. In March 1947 the three non applicants issued to the Provincial Government a notice under B, 80, Civil P.C., in which they stated that they did not admit the legality of the notification and that they were going to file a suit for a declaration that the reference to an adjudicator was illegal. Thereafter, they instituted civil suit No. 288A of 1947 in the Court of the second Civil Judge. Class II, Nagpur, on 16th June 1947; and on 20th July 1918 that...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Advani and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Pro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom297; (1950)52BOMLR434; [1950]18ITR557(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The first question that we have to consider on this reference is whether certain expenditure incurred by the assessee company as legal expenses are permissible deductions as falling within section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. The facts that give rise to this question are brief. The assessee company is a private limited company in which the directors have a controlling interest. There are four managing directors. They and their manager were prosecuted in Madras for offences under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 1943, and the charge against them was that on the 20th of January, 1944, the company sold to the Superintendent of Stationerya box-boards. at Re. 1-1-0 as against the landed cost of As. 3-10 per pound. The Chief Presidency Magistrate at Madras discharged all accused. The directors and the salesman were also prosecuted at Karachi under the Defence of Indian Rules on the ground that the salesman refused to sell paper as he should have done. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tuljansa Janardhansa Pawar, Hubli Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom332; (1950)52BOMLR421; [1950]18ITR648(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. There was a joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of one Babansa and his three sons Janardhansa, Subansa and Appansa. Babansa died on the 26th June, 1938, and Janardhansa predeceased him having died on the 3rd January, 1926. Janardhansa left four sons of whom the applicant before us is one, and after the death of Janardhansa, Subansa was the Karta of this joint and undivided Hindu family. The family was assessed to tax as a Hindu joint family and Subansa made an application to the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessment for the assessment year 1943-44 that there had been a partition and that an order to that effect should be made. Section 25A contemplates an enquiry being made by the Income-tax Officer on notice being served on all the members of the family, and if the Income-tax Officer is satisfied on making such inquiry that the joint family property has been partitioned among the various members or groups of members in definite portions, he has to record ...
Tag this Judgment!The ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Exce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom269; (1950)52BOMLR424; [1950]18ITR750(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises on this reference is the interpretation of certain provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, and the material facts are that the assessee company, the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., was carrying on for many years the business of plying ships for hire and was also the managing agents of many steamship companies. In the chargeable accounting period which is from the 1st of July, 1940, to 30th June, 1941, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 3,46,850 towards the construction of a ship-building yard at Vizagapatam, and the contention of the assessee company was that it was entitled to include this sum as a capital employed in its business for computing the average amount of capital according to the rules in Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal. 2. Now, it is important to note two findings of fact arrived by the Tribunal. The first finding is that the business of plying ships which the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom391; (1950)52BOMLR427; [1950]18ITR712(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The only question arises on this reference is whether the assessee company was a director-controlled company or not a director-controlled company. The total number of shares of the company was 15,600 and the period with which we are concerned is the period from the 1st of October, 1944, to the 5th of June, 1945. During this period the total number of Shares held by the directors was 7,471. Therefore, during this period they controlled not a majority but a minority of the total votes which could be exercised as a result of the holding of shares. On these facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee company was not a director-controlled company. It was urged before the Tribunal, as it has been urged before us by Sir Jamshedji Kanga, that two of the directors and shareholders Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Bhagubhai Mafatlal died on the 19th of July, 1944, and the 30th of September, 1944, and during the material period the shares which these two persons held were no...
Tag this Judgment!The ScIndia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Exc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1950
Reported in: [1950]18ITR705(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that arises on this reference is the interpretation of certain provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, and the material facts are that the assessee company, the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., was carrying on for many years the business of plying ships for hire and was also the managing agents of many steamship companies. In the chargeable accounting period which is from the 1st of July, 1940, to 30th June, 1941, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 3,46,850 towards the construction of a ship-building yard at Vizagapatam, and the contention of the assessee company was that it was entitled to include this sum as a capital employed in its business for computing the average amount of capital according to the rules in Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal.Now, it is important to note two findings of fact arrived by the Tribunal. The first finding is that the business of plying ships which the assessee com...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom383; (1950)52BOMLR415; [1950]18ITR460(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee limited company held the managing agency of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. under an agreement dated the 2nd of May, 1948. Under this agreement the assessee company was to be paid commission at different rates which were to be computed upon the net profits of the company. In the account year 1942 the assessee company paid a sum of Rs. 52,000 as the half share of the bonus which the managed company paid to certain officers of the company. In the account year 1943 the assessee company paid a further sum of Rs. 45,500 as the half share of the bonus paid by the managed company also to certain officers of the managed company. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee company is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 39,000 out of the said sum of Rs. 52,000 (the balance of Rs. 13,000 having been recovered by the assessee company from persons who are co-sharers with them in the commission) as a permissible deduction under Section 10(2) (xv) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »