Mumbai Court March 1953 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Tejaji Farasram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom93; (1953)55BOMLR785; ILR1953Bom887; [1953]23ITR412(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather important question arises on this reference as regards the power of the Commissioner to revise the orders of an Income-tax Officer under Section 33B.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, the 'karta' of which is one Tejaji Farasram Khara-wala. This Hindu undivided family was the sole selling agent of dyes and chemicals manufactured by Ciba (India) Ltd. and Imperial Chemical Industries (India), Ltd. On 24-10-1947, this family agreed to transfer this business to a private limited company by the name of Tcjaji Farasram Khara-wala, Ltd., and the share-holders of this company were the members of the joint family. Under the agreement of sale the goodwill of the business was fixed at Rs. 50,000. The family's income for Samvat Year 2003 was computed at Rs. 3,51,506. This amount included a sum of Rs. 25,000 which was included as representing the goodwill of the business which had been transferred to the private limited company. As the goodwill was transferred for R...
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Sha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom137; (1953)55BOMLR834; ILR1953Bom815; [1953]23ITR363(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is the Shamsher Printing Press which is a registered firm. The sssessment year we are concerned with is 1915-46, the relevant, accounting year corresponding to it being Samvat Year 2000. The business of the assessee consists of purchasing and selling paper, stationery, etc., and it also carries on business as manufacturers of books, exercise books, diaries, etc. The premises in which the assessee carries on this business were requisitioned by the Collector of Bombay by his order dated 11-9-1943, under Rule 75-A(i), Defence of India Rules. The assessee filed a claim before the requisitioning authorities claiming a sum of Rs. 8,10,300 as compensation. A sum of Rs. 93,103 was ultimately awarded for compensation to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer treated a sum of Rs. 61,129 out of this sum as a revenue receipt, and in this particular Reference we are only concerned with an item of Rs. 57,435, and the only question that we have to consider is whet...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom161; (1953)55BOMLR811; ILR1953Bom893; [1953]23ITR420(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference substantially raises the same question that was raised In the last Reference --'Commr. I. T. v. Tejaji', : [1953]23ITR412(Bom) (A),viz., the power of the Commissioner to pass orders under Section 33B of the Act. In that case we had to deal with the position where the Commissioner exercised his power after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made his order. In the present case the question arises which we left open in the last Reference as to whether the Commissioner has the power to pass an order under Section 33B when an appeal has been preferred by the assessee and is pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. Now, the facts briefly are that the Income-tax Officer made assessment on the assessee in respect of the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The assessee was registered as a firm under Section 26A of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced t...
Phaltan Bank Ltd. Vs. Baburao Appajirao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom43; (1953)55BOMLR762; ILR1953Bom1176
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal raises a short question of limitation under Art. 181Limitation Act. The appellant) the Phaltan Bank Limited, had sued the respondents to recover the amount due on a mortgage executed in its favour (Civil Suit No. 174 of 1937). A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the Bank for Rs. 2,242-3-6 on 21-12-1939. The mortgagors preferred an appeal in the District Court of Phaltan. as paupers (Appeal No. 6 of 1941). This appeal was dismissed with costs on 27-7-1942. Thereafter, the mortgagors preferred a pauper appeal in the High Court at Phaltan. This appeal was preferred beyond 30 days which is the period of limitation for a pauper appeal, but within 90 days which is the period of limitation for an ordinary appeal. It is clear that the fact that the pauper appeal was beyond time was not noticed by the High Court and notice was issued on the appeal. When the Bank appeared, it drew the attention of the High Court to the fact that the pauper appeal was in...
C. Parakh and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom75; (1953)55BOMLR780
Chagla, C. J. 1. Two questions have been raised on this reference, and with regard to one it is very easy to dispose of that question. The assessee company is a public limited company and it is resident and ordinarily resident in India. The assessment year is 1949-50 and the corresponding accounting year is the year ended 30-9-1948. The company does business in cotton and its head office is in Bombay. This company entered into an agreement with one Lcombas for the purchase of 100 jeeps and 400 Chevrolet trucks, and against the purchase of 100 jeeps the company made an advance of Rs. 50,000 by cheque to this Loombas.Loombas subsequently repudiated having entered into this agreement and thereupon the assessee company filed a criminal complaint against him for cheating in respect of this sum of Rs. 50,000, and in prosecuting this complaint the assessee company spent a sum of Rs. 8,150. The assessee company claimed this sum of Rs. 8,150 as a permissible deduction. The Tribunal held that as...
Champalal Asharam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom112; (1953)55BOMLR776; [1953]23ITR464(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether a certain order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was an order under Section 30(2) or an order under Section 31. If the order was under Section 31 it was appealable, if it was one under Section 30(2) no appeal could lie under that order. The Tribunal has taken the view that the order was under Section 30(2) and therefore refused to entertain the appeal preferred by the assessee from that order, and the question submitted to us by the Tribunal in substance raises this question. 2. Now, a few facts might be stated. The assessment order was passed on the 30th of April, 1949, and the notice of demand was served upon the assessee on the 13th of February, 1950. The last day for preferring the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was the 16th of March, 1950. For certain reasons which it is not necessary to go into at the present stage, the assessee did not post the memo. of appeal from Ahmednagar where...