Mumbai Court October 1952 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.
The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Vs. Mohonlal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom230; (1953)55BOMLR152; ILR1953Bom658
Chagla, C.J.(1) The assesses was the selling agent of the Victoria Mills, Ltd., and the Jubilee Mills, Ltd. He was also the selling agent of the Gaekwar Mills, Ltd., and the Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills, Ltd. The last two mills were working in the Baroda State. The assessee then floated a private limited company in the name of M. M. Shah, Ltd., in the Baroda State on 12-9-1941. Out of 1000 shares in this private limited company he held 800 shares and his wife held the remaining 200 shares. On 19-9-1941, the assessee resigned his office of selling agent of the two mills situated in Baroda State, and this resignation was to take effect from 1-10-1941, and on that very day these two mills appointed M. M. Shah, Ltd., to be the selling agents of the mills. The Excess Profits Tax Officer while making the excess profits assessment for the chargeable accounting periods, calendar years 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1-1-1946, to 31-3-1946, added to the assessee's profits the profits derived from t...
A. Moosa and Sons, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR73(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee has a tailoring shop in Bombay and he supplies miscellaneous stores to ships on a fairly large scale. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1946-47. For this year assessee returned a profit of Rs. 57,344 on gross receipts of Rs. 5,83,382 on the basis of his books of account. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee did not make it possible for him to deduce the profits and gains of his business and therefore he computed the profits and gains upon a certain basis which he adopted. In other words, the Income-tax Officer acted under the power given to him by the proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act. The proviso to Section 13 leaves it to the Income-tax Officer to compute the profits upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. Although the discretion is vested in the Income-tax Officer, the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or dishonestly. He must ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Dwarkadas Vassanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR109(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee before us is one Dwarkadas Vassanji. He was a partner in the firm of Purushottam Laxmidas and his share was 12 annas. In 1941 business was commenced by a firm of the name of Vasantsen Dwarkadas and this firm filed a return of its income. The profits of the firm were assessed at Rs. 62,752 by the Income-tax Officer. He however came to the conclusion that the business which was carried on in the name of Vasantsen Dwarkadas belonged to Dwarkadas Vassanji and he refused an application for the registration of the firm of Vasantsen Dwarkadas. Vasantsen Dwarkadas preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the business carried on in the name of Vasantsen Dwarkadas was really the business of Purshottam Laxmidas and that Dwarkadas had a 12 annas share in that business. From the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal conf...
A. Moosa and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom239; (1953)55BOMLR149; ILR1953Bom643
Chagla, C.J. (1) The assesses has a tailoring shop in Bombay and he supplies miscellaneous stores to ships on a fairly large scale. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1946-47. For this year the assesses returned a profit of Rs. 57,344 on gross receipts of Rs. 5,83,382 on the basis of his books of account. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the method of accounting adopted by the assesses did not make it possible for him to deduce the profits and gains of his business and therefore he computed the profits and gains upon a certain basis which he adopted. In other words, the Income-tax Officer acted under the power given to him by the proviso to Section 13, Income-tax Act. The proviso to Section 13 leaves it to the Income-tax Officer to compute the profits upon such basis and in such manner as he may determine. Although the discretion is vested in the Income-tax Officer, the discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or dishonestly. He must ...
Mahalu Shidappa Vs. Shankar Dadu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom357; (1953)55BOMLR301; ILR1953Bom1231
(1) The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the deed of gift executed by the adoptive mother of the plaintiff binds him. The properties covered by the deed of gift are five pieces of land situated at Chabukswarwadi in the District of Sangli. These properties originally belonged to Dada. At his death Dada had left behind him his widow Nani and his daughter Sarja. Sarja had two children, a son Shankar & a daughter Jai. Jai has been married to Mahalu. After Dada's death Nani succeeded to the estate of Dada as a limited owner. On 17-2-1930, Nani executed a deed of gift in favour of Mahalu. It is common ground that the deed of gift covers all the properties left by Dada. On 21-5-1930, Sarja executed a deed of consent in favour of Mahalu on receiving Bs. 100 as consideration. Possession of the properties was delivered to Mahalu after the deed of gift was executed in his favour and since then Mahalu has been in possession of these properties. On 19-7-1941, Sarja's son...
Bansilal Lalchand and anr. Vs. Shivlal Lumbarlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom361; (1953)55BOMLR350; ILR1953Bom1045
(1) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by three plaintiffs to obtain a declaration that a sale-deed dated 26-5-1936, executed by defendant 3, who is the lather of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the husband of plaintiff 3, was not binding upon their interest in the suit property which is a house situated at Ahmednagar. The circumstances giving rise to the suit are shortly these.(2) The house in suit originally belonged to a family of three brothers, of whom defendant 3 was one. There was a partition in the year 1932 between the three brothers and at this partition the family house fell to the share of defendant 3. The evidence shows that at the partition defendant 3 obtained property worth about Rs. 40,000. It appears that defendant 3 was then a minor and the property which fell to his share was managed by trustees who made over possession to defendant 3 in or about the year 1034. The fact of handing over possession is evidenced by a receipt which is produced in the case. It also app...
Manibhai S. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR27(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessment year we are concerned with in this reference is the year 1945-46 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1944, and the question that arises for out determination is whether the assessee was 'not ordinarily resident' within the taxable territories during these years. It has been found by the taxing authorities that the assessee was a resident in the taxable territories during the calendar year 1944, and the reason why this question has got to be considered is because the assessee has claimed a certain exemption under the second proviso to Section 4 and that proviso lays down that in the case of a person not ordinarily resident in the taxable territories, income, profits and gains which accrue or arise to him without the taxable territories shall not be so included unless they are derived from a business controlled in or a profession or vocation set up in India or unless they are brought into or received in the taxable territories by him during such yea...
J.K. Trust Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom232; (1953)55BOMLR135; ILR1953Bom740; [1953]23ITR143(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises in this reference as to the interpretation of Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act. The assessees are the trustees of what is known as the J.K. Trust and the trust was created by Sir Padampat Singhania, Lala Kailashpat Singhania and Lala Lakshmipat Singhania for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, and it is admitted by the Department that the trust was for charitable purposes. It is also not disputed that as far as the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is concerned it is property which is held for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 4(3)(i) of the Act. The trustees of this trust were appointed the managing agents of Raymond Woollen Mill Ltd. and as such managing agents they have earned commission, and the question is whether the commission earned by the trustees is exempt from taxation. 2. Now, under clause 3 of the trust deed, the trustees are empowered with the help of the trust fund for and on behalf and for the benefit of the trust to carry on ...
Manibhai S. Patel Vs. the Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom258; (1953)55BOMLR141; ILR1953Bom640
Chagla, C.J. (1) The assessment year we are concerned with in this reference is the year 1945-46 and the accounting year is the calendar year 1944, and the question that arises for our determination is whether the assesses was 'not ordinarily resident' within the taxable territories during these years. It has been found by the taxing authorities that the assessee was a resident in the taxable territories during the calendar year 1944, and the reason why this question has got to be considered is because the assessee has claimed a certain exemption under the second proviso to Section 4, and that proviso lays down that in the case of a person not ordinarily resident in the taxable territories, income, profits and gains which accrue or arise to him without the taxable territories shall not be so included unless they are derived from a business controlled in or a profession or vocation set up in India or unless they are brought into or received in the taxable territories by him during such ...
Ramnath Shankarlal Chandak Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: (1953)IILLJ329Bom
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an application for revision from the applicant's conviction in respect of an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The applicant, who was convicted by the learned resident magistrate, first class, Ahmednagar, went up in appeal to the learned sessions judge of Ahmednagar; hut he refused to interfere with the conviction, and hence this application for revision.2. The facts are not in dispute. It appears from the evidence that the applicant in this case is the owner of certain premises, wherein twenty or more labourers work in the process of manufacturing bidis. On 29 October 1950 the complainant Yeshwant visited the premises and found that there was no latrine accommodation in the factory, as required by Section 19(1)(a) of the Factories Act, 1948. The only defence of the applicant, which it is necessary to state, was that it was true that there was no latrine accommodation provided, but the premises was not a factory, as defined in Section 2(m) of the Fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »