Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom146; (1952)54BOMLR40; ILR1952Bom886
Bhagwati, J.[1] These are eight criminal appeals against the orders passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 8th Court, Girgaum, Bom. bay, acquitting the accused in each case. The eight accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 471. City of Bom. bay Municipal Act, III [3] of 1888, in so fat as they failed to afford to the owner of the premises facilities as ordered by the Chief Judge of The Court of Small Causes for enabling the landlord to comply with municipal requisitions under Section 354 of the Act and thereby contravened Section 507 (3) of the Act. The eight accused were the tenants of The owner of she building and the Municipality had issued to the landlord a requisition under Section 354 of the Act to remove the structures etc., which were in ruins or likely to fall. The tenants apparently did not hand over possession of the premises to the landlord, with the result that the landlord was enable to comply with the requisition of the Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]21ITR293(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. These two references raise the same question of law which arises out of an assignment made by the managing agents of the E.D. Sassoon United Mills Ltd., in favour of the assessee company and the question relates to the managing agency commission received by the assessee company. 2. The facts briefly are that Sir Edward Sassoon and some others constituted a firm, and as a firm they were appointed the managing agents of the E.D. Sassoon United Mills Ltd., on February 24, 1920. This firm at a later date constituted itself into a private limited company, and, therefore, a fresh agency agreement was arrived at between the mills and the limited company on October 2, 1934. This agreement was substantially on the same terms as the agreement of February 24, 1920. There were negotiations for the transfer of the managing agency between the private limited company, namely, Messrs. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd., and one Mr. Tansukhrai N. Karnadia, a partner of the assessee firm, and the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom330; (1952)54BOMLR210; ILR1953Bom477
Facts 1. Facts of the case are given in the Judgment. The following question was referred to the High Court at the instance of E.D. Bassoon & Co, Ltd.:'Whether in the circumstances of the case was the managing agency commission liable to be apportioned between the assessee company and the assignee?'The Commissioner of Income-tax referred the same question which arose out of the facts stated above, namely the question: 'Whether in the circumstances of the case was the managing agency commission liable to be apportioned between the assessee firm and the assignor?'Both these references were heard together.Chagla, C.J.2. These two references raise the same question of law which arises out of an assignment made by the managing agents of the E. D. Sassoon United Mills Ltd. In favour of the assessee company, and the question relates to the managing agency commission received by the assessee company.3. The facts briefly are that Sir Edward Sassoon and some others constituted a firm, and as a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]21ITR22(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The only question that arises on this reference is whether the assessee's income falls to be computed under Section 7 or Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee Mrs. Durga khote is admittedly a well-known film, actress. In the year of account which is 1944 she entered into various contracts for serving with several film companies and the contracts were to the effect that her services were lent for the purpose of acting in different films at a certain remuneration fixed in the contracts. The contention of the Department was that her income represented 'Salaries' paid by the various film companies and she should show her return under Section 7 and not under Section 10. On the other hand, the contention of the assessee was that her income arose out of the practice of her profession, which was that of a film actress, and, therefore, her return was rightly shown under Section 10. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee. 2. Mr. Joshi's contention is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom387; (1952)54BOMLR405; ILR1952Bom1019
Vyas, J.(1) This Letters Patent appeal arises cut of a suit No. 166 of 1945 which was filed by the plaintiff for recovering possession of Survey No. 51/1 of the village Saptasagar in Athni Taluka and of 2 1/2 'gunthas' of land out of Survey No. 157/2 of the same village, Mr. Justice Bavdekar having reversed in second appeal the decisions of the two Courts below and having ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.(2) The relevant pedigree is to be found at typed page 4 of the paper book. One Jhambhai had two sons, Rajesaheb and Farid. Rajesaheb died on August 1, 1943. His son Bapusaheb had predeceased him in the year 1913. The present plaintiff Ramijabi is the daughter of Bapusaheb, in other words, the grand-daughter of Rajesaheb. Farid's son is Ghudu who is the present defendant.(3) The suit lands, out of which Survey, No. 51/1 was originally a 'shetsanadi inam', were at one time the joint family properties of Rajesaheb and Farid. At a partition which took pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]22CompCas53(Bom); [1952]21ITR121(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company is a company in which the public are not 'substantially interested' within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 23A of the Income-tax Act. It appears that with regard to the assessment year 1942-43 (accounting year 1941) and the assessment year 1943-44 (accounting year 1942) general meetings were held on October 14, 1942, for passing the accounts of the year 1941, and on October 11, 1943, with regard to the accounts of the year 1942. On March 31, 1944, at an extraordinary general meeting of the company it was resolved that bonus shares to the extend of one lac of rupees should be issued to the members out of the undistributed profits of the company. Now it is not disputed that this sum of one lac of rupees represents more than sixty per cent. of the undistributed profits of the company for the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, which undistributed profits represented in all to Rs. 1,61,569. On June 12, 1945, the Income-tax Officer wrote to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1952]22ITR305(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises on this reference is really a very simple one and can admit of only one answer. It appears that there was a joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of one Bhogilal and his three sons, Jaswantlal and two others. A deed, which was called a deed of separation and release, was executed on the May 4, 1942, and the parties to the deed were Jaswantlal on the one hand and his other co-parceners on the other. On this date Jaswantlal was a major, 24 years old. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the deed but the substance and effect of the provisions of the deed was that Jaswantlal was to receive Rs. 30,000 as his share in the joint family properties and he was to go out of the family. This sum of Rs. 30,000 was to be tied down in the manner provided in the deed. Jaswantlal was not entitled to the use of this amount for ten years and a committee of managers was appointed under the said deed which was to manage and administer that fund. After t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom290; (1952)54BOMLR202; ILR1953Bom148
FACTS 1. The questions of law referred to theHigh Court were : 1. Whether the issue of bonus shares by the assessee company is distribution of profits as dividends as required by Section 23A (1). Income-tax Act?2. It the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether any distribution of profits alter six months-of the annual meeting dated 14-10 1942, could be a legal bar to the passing of as order under Section 23A(1) of the Act?Chagla, C.J.2. The assessee company is a company in which the public are not 'substantially interested' within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 23A, Income-tax Act. It appears that with regard to the assessment year 1942-43 (accounting year 1941) and the assessments year 1943-44 (accounting year 1342) general meetings were held on 14.10-1943, for passing the accounts of the year 1941, and on 11.10.1943, with regard to the accounts of the year 1943. On 31-3-1944, at an extraordinary general meeting of the company it was resolved that bonu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom261; (1952)54BOMLR184; ILR1953Bom446; [1952]21ITR458(Bom)
FACTS [1] The following question of law was referred to the high Court:'Whether the provision imposing income-tax on capital gains, made by the Indian tax and Excess Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947, (XXII [22] of 1947), was ultra vires?Chagla, C.J.[2] This reference arises a very interesting and important question as to the validity of act XXII [22] of 1947.[3] The assessees before us are Sir Jamshedji Duggan and Lady Duggan, and the question arises with regard to a certain sum of Rs. 2,40,863 included in Sir Jamshedji's return of income for the assessment year 1947-48. This sum is the profit which Sir Jamshedji made as a result of the sale of certain shares and securities. Lady Duggan likewise, in her return of income for the same assessment year, included as 'capital gains' two sums of Rs. 3,54,168 and Rs. 37,632 arising from the sale of shares and securities. The Income-tax Officer included these capital gains in the assessable incomes of the husband and wife under Section 12B, In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom395; (1952)54BOMLR263; ILR1952Bom621
Bhagwati, J.(1) This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha in second appeal confirming the decree passed by the Court of Sarnyayadhish of Aundn with certain variations, which decree had reversed the judgment of the learned trial Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit.(2) The facts which gave rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows. One Gopal, who was the owner of the suit house, died in 1908 leaving him surviving his widow Rakhamabai and a widow of pre-deceased son Laxmibai. Rakhama-bai died in 1918, but before her death she alienated the suit house in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by a sale deed dated January 27, 1910. On the death of Rakhamabai, Laxmibai succeeded as the next reversionary heir of Gopal. She in her turn died in the year 1930, and on her death, the reversion opened and defendant No. 7 as the reversionary heir succeeded to the estate of Gopal. On July 16, 1934, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit property to defenda...
Tag this Judgment!