Mumbai Court August 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.
S.C. Cambatta and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom225; (1953)55BOMLR963; [1954]25ITR159(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A simple question which may be made to look a little complicated arises on this reference. The assessee company owned a business, among other businesses, of Eros Theatre and Restaurant and on the October 1, 1943, a subsidiary company was formed to which this business of Eros Theatre and Restaurant was transferred. The case of the subsidiary company was that it paid Rs. 5,00,000 for the goodwill of the two businesses which it had purchased, and the question that arose before the taxing authorities was whether any amount should be allowed for goodwill in computing the capital of the subsidiary company during the chargeable accounting period which is from the October 1, 1943, till the December 31, 1943. 2. Now, the view taken by the Tribunal and which has been supported before us by Mr. Joshi is that inasmuch as this was a capital acquired by the subsidiary company by purchase, the amount paid by the subsidiary company for the purpose of the goodwill cannot be taken into co...
Ganpati Maruti Vs. Anandrao Maruti and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom384; (1954)56BOMLR317
FACTS 1. One Hari Patlu, who owned certain survey numbers and a house, died on October 23, 1918. The pedigree of the family to which Hari Patlu belonged was as follows: APPAJI | --------------------------- | | Sagaji Janaji ------------------- | | | | Joti Naroji Murari Hari | | | Patlu Laxman Ganu | | ----------------- Maruti | | =Haribai Hari Tukaram | (died 23-10-1918) Ganpati(Paintiff) 2. On the death of Hari Patlu his property was taken into possession by the revenue authorities and on February 22, 1919, the property was given to one Maruti Babaji father of Ananda (defendant No. 1), who belonged to a different branch of the family unconnected with the branch of Hari Patlu and Maruti Ganu.3. On March 18, 1947, one Ganpat (plaintiff) filed a suit against defendant No. 1 and the alienees from defendant No. 1, for possession of Hari Patlu's property, alleging that he was adopted by Haribai to her deceased husband MarutiGanu on April 23, 1946, and that Haribai on thadeath of her husba...
Gurupadappa Basappa Nelvaji Vs. Karishiddappa Shivabasappa Nelvagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR252
Buvdekar, J.1. [His Lordship, after narrating facts and holding that the plaintiff's adoption was valid and that he was entitled to re-open the partition of 1918, proceeded.] The next question which arises is as to whether the learned trial Judge was right in allotting to the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 the properties which they had alienated before the date of the plaintiff's adoption. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that in such a case the right of the plaintiff is to take his share, whatever it is-one-fifth in the present case-in the properties which were in existence at the time of the partition-in this case 1918, but exclusive of the property which was alienated between the dates of the partition and the adoption. These alienations would ordinarily be of two kinds : either they were binding upon the family, for example, when they were made for legal necessity like payment of debts which may have been allotted to the various branches by the partition. In the altern...
Subodhchandra Popatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR566(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether certain emolunments paid to one Sarabhai, who is an employee of the assessee firm, was a permissible deduction. It appears that this employee was in the service of the assessee firm for the Samvat year 1990. He was acting as the manager and from 1990 to 1997 he was paid a salary and varying bonuses. upto 1995 the bonuses paid to Sarabhai were allowed by the taxing department, but from 1996, when the bonuses went up to Rs. 22,751, the Income-tax Officer refused to allow the full bonus and allowed only part of it. Then the case of the assessee firm is that in 1998 an agreement was arrived at under which Sarabhai was to be paid a salary and a certain commission on profits, and in respect of Samvat years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 a claim was made by the assessee firm that as the emoluments were paid to Sarabhai under an agreement, whatever was paid was a permissible deduction. This claim was rejected by the taxing authori...
Subhodhchandra Popatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom234; (1953)55BOMLR959; ILR1954Bom397
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether certain emoluments paid to one Sarabhai, who is an employee of the assessee firm, was a permissible deduction. It appears that this employee was in the service of the assessee firm for the Samvat year 1900. Ho was acting as the manager and from 1990 to 1997 he was paid a salary and varying bonuses. Up to 1995 the bonuses paid to Sarabhai were allowed by the taxing department, but from 1996 when the bonuses went up to Rs. 22,751, the Income-tax Officer refused to allow the full bonus and allowed only a part of it. Then the case of the assessee firm is that in 1993 an agreement was arrived at under which Sarabhai was to be paid a salary and a certain commission on profits, and in respect of Samvat years 1998. 1999, 2000 and 2001 a claim was made by the assessee firm that as the emoluments were paid to Sarabhai under an agreement, whatever was paid was a permissible deduction.This claim was rejected by the taxing authori...
Nahalchand Laloochand Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom227; (1953)55BOMLR955; [1953]24ITR617(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a firm and it acts as a selling agency of certain mills. The total income of the assessee which was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1947-48 was Rs. 4,96,944. In this there was an item of Rs. 1,65,000 and the controversy that has arisen and which has given rise to this reference is with regard to this amount. 2. It appears that the case of the assessee with regard to this item was that this amount was credited on the 20th of December, 1945, to Bai Jivibai who was the widow of a late partner of the firm and it was further the case of the assessee that her husband had given gold ornaments to his wife and she had melted these ornaments and she sold the gold which was the result of this melting on the 20th of December, and the sale proceeds of the gold that was sold was Rs. 1,65,000 which was credited to the account of Bai Jivibai. 3. The taxing authorities held that the case of the assessee was not true and the sum of Rs. 1,65,000 represented i...
Gridhar Javer and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1953
Reported in: (1953)55BOMLR950; [1953]24ITR540(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessees failed to submit a return for the assessment year 1945-46 in response to a notice under Section 22 (2) of Income-tax Act. They also failed to produced the account books in answer to the notice under Section 22 (4) of the Act. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer made the assessment under Section 23 (4) and he estimated the sales effected by the assessees, who are doing business of chemists and druggists, at Rs. 9,00,000 and applied a flat rate of 25 per cent. to compute the gross profits. The assessees then made an application under Section 27 for setting aside the assessment under Section 23 (4). That application was dismissed by the Income-tax Officer. the assessees then preferred two appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, one against the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 27 and the other against the quantum of the assessment under Section 23 (4). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal against the order of the Income-t...
M.V. Rajwade I.A.S., Dist. Magistrate Vs. Dr. S.M. Hassan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ366
ORDER1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases:No. 35/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan and Ors.No. 36/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri Abhilas-Chandra.No. 37/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. N.B. Khare and Ors.No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K.N. Sokhta and Anr.No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R.K. Shukla and Ors.No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and Anr.No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications.3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles.(A) The authors concerned are-(1) Dr. S....
State Government Vs. Vishwanath Nidhanji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1042
1. This is an appeal by the state Government under Section 417, Criminal P. C., against the acquittal of the respondents by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. All the respondents were tried jointly along with three other persons, Balwantsingh, Kamchandra and Chauthmal. The respondents were charged with offences under Sections 396 and 120-B, I. P. C. whereas the other three persons, were tried for offences under Sections 399 and 120-B, I. P. O. The respondent Champat was also charged with the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and tried for the same. The Court of Session acquitted the respondents and other three persons of the offences for which they were tried. The State Government has not appealed from the acquittal of the three persons other than the respondents and has confined its appeal to the acquittal of the respondents of the offence under Section 396, I. P. C.2. After the admission of the appeal, this Court ordered issue of notices to the respondents under Section...
Ramnath Goenka Vs. Amarchand and Mangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom208; (1953)55BOMLR980; ILR1954Bom377
Chagla, C.J.1. Messrs. Amarchand & Mangaldas acted as attorneys for the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Murliprasad in certain litigation, and they obtained a pay order against their clients on December 8, 1939. This pay order has the same effect as a decree; under the rules of this Court a solicitor is entitled to resort to summary procedure to have his bill of costs taxed against his client and to get the Judge in Chambers to pass an order directing payment against his client. Messrs. Amarchand & Mangaldas having resorted to the summary procedure obtained this order as already pointed out on December 8, 1939.On December 16, 1943, Messrs. Amarchand & Mangaldas applied under Order XXI, Rule 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, for adjudication that Ram-nath Goenka was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Murliprasad. This application became necessary as Ramnath Goenka had neither been served with the pay order, nor had his liability as a partner of the firm been adjudicated in those proceedin...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »