Mumbai Court August 1951 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Blundell Spence and Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas159(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a company registered in the United Kingdom and is a non-resident company. In the year of account, which is from November 1, 1945, to October 31, 1946, and which is relevant for the assessment year 1947-48, it received a net dividend of Rs. 1,40,000 from the Elephant Oil Mills Co., in which the company held 7,000 shares on which this dividend was declared. The Income-tax Officer grossed up the dividend income by adding to it the tax payable in the United Kingdom at 9 shillings per pound sterling, which amounted to Rs. 1,14,546, and Indian income-tax which amounted to Rs. 59,112. On this grossing up, the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the dividend income of the assessee was Rs. 3,13,658. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that to the sum of Rs. 1,40,000 only Rs. 59,112 should be added and the gross dividend of the assessee should be Rs. 1,99,112. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Laxman and ors. Vs. the Bank of Kolhapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom315; (1952)54BOMLR245; ILR1952Bom715
FACTS One Krishnaji (defendant No. 1) was an employee of the Bank of Kolhapur (plaintiff. In the course of his work as such employee he committed various defalcations by unauthorisedly operating on three khatas of the plaintiff's customers, by forging several cheques in these accounts and also by making false entries therein and misappropriated sums aggregating to Rs. 30,700. These defalcations were discovered by about October 25, 1944, and defendant No. 1 was questioned by one Padalkar, the accountant of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 confessed to having committed these defalcations. Padalkar accompanied defendant No. 1 to the house where he was living with his maternal aunt Laxmibai who was the widow of one Laxman Golwalkar and was the owner of the suit house having a widow's estate therein, Shankarrao (defendant No. 2) was also a distant relation of hers and had been staying in the house. He was looked upon by defendant No. 1 as well as Laxmibai for guidance being a Government serva...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Porbunderwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR63(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is a reference which raises a very short but important question as to the competency of an appeal to the Tribunal. Assessment orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer on the May 29, 1948, with regard to the assessments for the years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 and an appeal was preferred against these orders to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on February 26, 1949. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal as being out of time. The contention of the assessee was that this appeal as being out of time, the contention of the assessee was that this appeal as being out of time. The contention of the assessee was that this appeal was in time because as required by law service of the notice of demand in respect of the assessment was not served upon him until January 29, 1949, and he having filed the appeal within thirty days of that service, viz., on February 29, 1949, the appeal was in time. The contention was not accepted by the Appellate Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Bhogilal H. Patel, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR72(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 59,129 in a business of buying and selling cotton at Wadhwan. In the sake year, he made a profit of Rs. 15,992 in a cotton business which he carried on in Bombay. The loss suffered by the assessee was allowed to be set off against his profits in Bombay for the purpose of income-tax. And the question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to the same relief for the purposes of the excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 1943. The Tribunal took the view that he was entitled to that relief, and in coming to that conclusion the Tribunal relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla Mahajan Association . In that case, the facts were that the assessee was carrying on two distinct and separate business, one in Bombay and the other at Indore. During the year of account, there was a profit in Bombay and a loss at Indore, and the Income-tax autho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Bhogilal H. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom43; (1952)54BOMLR622
Chagla, C.J.[1] The assessee suffered a loss of RS. 59,129 in a business of buying and selling cotton at Wadhwan. In the same year, he made a profit of us. 15,992 in a cotton business which he carried on in Bombay. The loss suffered by the assesses was allowed to be set off against his profits in Bombay for the purposes of income-tax. And the question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to the same relief for the purposes of the excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period 1943. The Tribunal took the view that he was entitled to that relief, and in coming to that conclusion the Tribunal relied on a decision of this Court in Commissioner, I.-T. v. Murlidhar Mathurawalla, 50 BOm. L. B. 366. In that case, the facts were that 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 a profit in Bombay and a loss at Indore, and the income-tax authorities held that t...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Kotak and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR18(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee in this case was assessed for the years 1944-45 and 1945-46. He failed to make the full payment in respect of his assessment for these years. Thereupon on June 23, 1948, the Income-tax Officer purported to pass an order to the following effect :- 'Tax not paid. Issue penalty notice.' 2. Pursuant to this order a demand was made for payment under Section 29 and the notice of demand mentioned what was the amount of penalty that the assessee had to pay. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the order under Section 46(1) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduces the penalty. Then there was an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The contention urged before the Tribunal and also before us is that the penalty imposed was contrary to law inasmuch as no proper order was passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 46(1). That sub-section provides that whe n an asses...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Kotak and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom242; (1952)54BOMLR169; ILR1952Bom1010
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assesses in this cage was assessed for the years 1944-45 and 1946-46. He failed to make the full payment in respect of his assessment for these years. Thereupon on 23 6 1948, the Income-tax Officer purported to pass an order to the following effect. 'Tax not paid; Issue Penalty Notice.' Pursuant to this order a demand was made for payment under Section 29 and the notice of demand mentioned what was the amount of penalty that the assessee had to pay. The assesses appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from the order under Section 46(1) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the penalty. Then there was an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. The contention urged before the Tribunal and also before us is that the penalty imposed was contrary to law inasmuch as no proper order was passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 46 (i). That sub-section provides that when an assessee is ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: [1952]21ITR333(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The joint family, of which the assessee was at one time a member, had advanced certain loans to the Warad family. On partition of that joint family the debts due to the family came to the share of the assessee. A suit was filed by the assessee for recovery of those debts against the Warad estate but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. There was an appeal to this Court but this Court dismissed the appeal on September 29, 1941. The question that arose for consideration by the Income-tax authorities was as to when these loans advanced by the family to the Warad estate became a bad debt. The Income-tax Officer held that the loans were not advanced in the course of the joint family business and therefore the claim of the assessee to deduct this amount as a bad debt was disallowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal held that the debt had become a bad debt many years prior to the year of assessment. Then there was an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Indian Stamp Act, Ii of 1899
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom199; (1952)54BOMLR230; ILR1952Bom881
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question that arises for our determination on this reference made by theChief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57, Stamp Act is a very short one. On 24 8-1948, on agreement for lease was entered into between the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and one Anandji Haridas. Pursuant to this agreement, a lease was executed on 19.4 1949. It is common ground that the agreement for lease of 24 .8.1948, did not effect a present demise. The agreement to lease was stamped ad valorem under Article 35, Stamp Act, and the lease of 19-4-1949 was stamped only with annas 12. The question that we have to consider is whether the document of 19-4-1919, was properly stamped.[2] It is not necessary to consider on this reference a certain fact which has been mentioned in the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, because there is no dispute between the parties with regard to it, namely, that a certain sum was deposited by Anandji Haridas with the Trustees of the Port ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansukhlal Dhanji Vora and ors. Vs. the Jupiter Airways Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom112; (1952)54BOMLR777
(1) This suit is filed by 16 plaintiffs as shareholders of the 1st defendant company on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all other shareholders of the 1st defendant company, except defendants 2 to 12. According to the plaint, the 1st defendant company was incorporated on July 13, 1946, for carrying on business of aerial transport, & by the company's memorandum dated July 12, 1946, the capital of the 1st defendant company was two crores of rupees divided into twenty lacs ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. (2) In para. 2 of the plaint, it is stated that on June 15, 1946, the 1st defendant company issued forms of applications for shares of the 1st defendant company to certain share-brokers named in the paragraph 'with the intention thatthe forms may be used by members of the public for applying for shares.' It is then stated that the same were issued without any prospectus and that the 1st company had not at that time even filed a statement in lieu of prospectus with the Registrar of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »