Mumbai Court March 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.
Mote Shah and Co., Karad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR39(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The firm of Mote Shah & Co., which was an unregistered firm, was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1949-50. The assessee appealed against the order of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While the appeal was pending before him, the assessee applied for permission to make an application to the Income-tax Officer under Section 26A for registration of the partnership. No order was made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this application and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed his final order reducing the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. From that decision an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal the assessee made a grievance of the fact that no order on his application had been made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal took the view that it was not competent for it to consider the grievance of the assessee and disposed of the appeal by confirming the order of...
Mote Shah and Co. Karad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom447; (1952)54BOMLR570
Chagla, C.J.[1] The firm of Mote Shah & Co., which was an unregistered firm, was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1949-50. The assessee appealed against the order of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. While the appeal was pending before him the assesses applied for permission to make an application to the Income-tax Officer under Section 26(A) for registration of the partnership. No order was made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this application and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed his final order reducing the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. From that decision an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal the assessee made a grievance of the fact that no order on his application had been made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal took the view that it was not competent for it to consider the grievance of the assessee and disposed of the appeal by confirming the order ...
Lalbhai Dalpat Bhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom457; (1952)54BOMLR573
Chagla, C.J.[1] A very interesting question arises on this reference as to the proper construction to be placed on the expression ''receivable' used in Section 8, Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and we are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46. The relevant account year was samvat 2000, the corresponding English dates being 30-10-1943, to 17-10-1944. One of the sources of income of the assessee was interest on 5 per cent. 1945-55 tax-free war loan of the face value of Rs. 14 lacs. Interest on these securities was payable on April 15 and October 15 every year. These securities were lodged with the Imperial Bank of India. 15-10-1944 was a holiday. October 16 was a working day, and October 17 and 18 were again Divali holidays, The Imperial Bank collected the interest in respect of this half year on 21-10-1944. The Income Tax Department treated this half yearly income which was received by the Imperial Bank on 21-10-1944, as the income of the assessee f...
Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR58(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this reference are these :- The assessees, the Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd., were assessed for the assessment year 1948-49. They had made a business profit of Rs. 37,703. Under Section 10(2) (vi) the depreciation that was allowable to them was Rs. 52,985. In the same year the assessee company had made a capital gain of Rs. 90,400. Deducting Rs. 52,985 from the business profit of Rs. 37,703 there would be a business loss of Rs. 15,282; and the first question that arose for the consideration of the Tribunal, and which has been referred to us now, was whether this business loss of Rs. 15,282 can be set off against the capital gain of Rs. 90,400. 2. Now, frankly speaking the sections which we are to consider cause considerable difficulty, by reason of the language used by the Legislature, in giving a proper interpretation to them. But the best way to approach the matter is first to consider the scheme underlying the various sections and then to give an...
Ambica Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Bom483; (1952)54BOMLR589; ILR1953Bom515
Chagla, C.J.[1] The facts giving rise to this reference are these:[2] The assessees, the Ambika Silk Mills Co., Ltd., were assessed for the assessment year 1948-49. They bad made a business profit of Rs. 37,703. Under Section 10(2)(vi), the depreciation that was allowable to them was Rs. 52,985. In the same year, the assessee company had made a capital gain of Rs. 90,400. Deducting Rs. 52,985 from the business profit of Rs. 87,703 there would be a business loss of RS. 15,232; and the first question that arose for the consideration of the Tribunal, and which has been referred to as now, was whether this business loss of Rs. 15,282 can be set off against the capital gain of Rs. 90,100.[3] Now, frankly speaking, the sections which we have to consider cause considerable difficulty, by reason of the language used by the Legislature, in giving a proper interpretation to them. But the best way to approach the matter is first to consider the scheme underlying the various sections and then to g...
Abdullabhai Abdul Kadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: [1952]22ITR241(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference was before us on the of March 22, 1950. On that day we directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case. That supplementary statement has now been submitted by the Tribunal; and on this supplementary statement various questions arise which have got to be considered. 2. The first question which has been argued by Sir Jamshedji on behalf of the assessee is that with regard to the assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46 his client cannot be assessed as an agent under Section 43 in view of the death of the non-resident. Now, the facts which are necessary to be considered with regard to this contention are that the assessee was appointed a statutory agent under Section 43 for the year 1942-43 on the of March 12, 1945. The non-resident died on the of March 26, 1947, and the orders appointing the assessee statutory agent with regard to assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46 were passed on the of June 27, 1946. Sir Jamshedji's con...
Abdullabhai Abdul Kader Vs. Income-tax Commissioner, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom9; (1952)54BOMLR583; ILR1953Bom507
Chagla, C.J.[1] This reference was before us on 22-3-1050. On that day we directed the Tribunal to submit a supplementary statement of the case. That supplementary statement has now been sub-mitted by the Tribunal; and on this supplementary statement various questions arise which have got to be considered.[2] The first question which hag been argued by Sir Jamshedji on behalf of the assessoe is, that with regard to the assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46 his client cannot be assessed as an agent under Section 43 in view of the death of the nonresident. Now, the facts which are necessary to be considered with regard to this contention are that the assessee was appointed a statutory agent under 8. 43 for the year 1942-13 on 12-3-1945. The non-resident died on 26-3-1946, and the orders appointing the assesseo statutory agent with regard to assessment years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1915-46 wore passed on 27.6-1946. Sir Jamshedji's contention is that inasmuch as the non-resident was d...
In Re: G.M. Oka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas168(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This matter arises out of disciplinary proceedings taken against a chartered accountant. The matter was investigated by the Disciplinary Committee and the Council has submitted to us its findings. 2. It would appear that the respondent, a chartered accountant, was the accountant of the Shivaji Sugar Mills which was incorporated in 1942. There were two principal directors of that company, G. P. Uplap and his brother N. P. Uplap, and the charge against the respondent is in connection with the balance-sheet of that company as of the 30th November, 1946. One Dahanukar became the director in 1948 and on the 6th April, 1948, Dahanukar filed a complaint against G. P. Uplap under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that Uplap had misappropriated Rs. 15,000. The Resident Magistrate, Pandharpur, acquitted Uplap, and the findings of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants are in relation to certain statements made by the respondent. We should like to point o...
Sarupsingh Mangat Singh Vs. Nilkant Bhaskar Suratkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: [1952]22CompCas130B(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of TENDOLKAR, J., who refused to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the defendant. The decree was passed in a running down action. The suit was field on 14th October, 1947, and the summons was served upon the defendant by substituted service on 6th December, 1947. Messrs. Mulla & Mulla filed their appearance on behalf of the defendant, but no written statement was filed and the suit appeared before the learned Judge for hearing on 27th June, 1951, and as the defendant was absent, an ex parte decree was passed. A motion was taken out by the defendant on 26th July, 1951, to set aside this ex parte decree, and as mentioned before the learned Judge dismissed the motion. 2. Now, dealing first with the narrow question as to whether there was any sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant on 27th June, 1951, we entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Judge below that there was not sufficient cause. Although Messrs...
Sarupsing Mangatsing Vs. Nilkant Bhaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom109; (1952)54BOMLR557; ILR1953Bom296
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Tendolkar who refused to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against the defendant. The decree was passed in a running down action. The suit was filed on October 14, 1947, and the summons was served upon the defendant by substituted service on December 6, 1947. Messrs. Mulla & Mulla filed their appearance on behalf of the defendant, but no written statement was filed, and the suit appeared before the learned Judge for hearing on June 27, 1951, and as the defendant was absent, an ex-parte decree was passed. A motion was taken out by the defendant on July 26, 1951, to set aside this ex-parte decree, and as mentioned before the learned Judge dismissed the motion.(2) Now, dealing first with the narrow question as to whether there was any sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant on June 21, 1951, we entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Judge below that there was not sufficient cause. Although Messrs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »