Mumbai Court September 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.
Mangaldas N. Verma Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom184; (1953)55BOMLR1019; ILR1954Bom567
Chagla, C.J.1. The case of the applicant before us was referred to the Income-tax Investigation Commission by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947. The Commission submitted its report on October 16, 1950, and after considering the report the Central Government directed under Section 8(2) of the Act that appropriate assessment proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act be taken against the assessee with a view to assess or re-assess the income which had escaped income-tax assessments for the years 1941-42, 1942-43, 1943-44, 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 and the Excess Profits Tax assessments for the chargeable accounting periods ended March 31, 1941, March 31, 1942, March 31. 1943, March 31, 1944, March 31, 1945, and March 31, 1946. In pursuance of these directions the Income-tax Officer and the Excess Profits Tax Officer have made re-assessments for the relevant years.2. Under Secti...
Ganpati Timmanna Vs. Nilkanth Sadashiv and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom335; (1954)56BOMLR211; ILR1954Bom678
1. This is a second appeal in execution which raises a short question which is whether the respondents are entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 469-6-3 from out of the amount of Rs. 2,172 ;paid into Court by them. The circumstances giving rise to the execution application out of which .the appeal arises are these.2. On 16 June 1947, the respondents filed against the appellant a suit for specific performance of a contract. While the suit was pending, the respondents paid into Court a sum of Rs. 2,500.The suit was eventually decreed on 22 September 1948, and the material terms of the decree were as follows:'The plaintiffs do pay to the defendant Rs. 2,172 (two thousand one hundred and seventy-two), that is to say, the said amount is to be paid to the defendant out of the amount of Rs. 2,500 already deposited by the plaintiffs in the Court. The defendant do execute the necessary sale-deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. If the defendant fails to execute the sale de...
Godrej and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom229; (1953)55BOMLR998; ILR1954Bom416; [1954]25ITR108(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The principle of law that we have to consider on this reference is clear and well established. The only question is how we shall apply it to the facts of the present case.2. The assessee is a registered firm and its business was to act as the managing agents of Godrej Soaps, Ltd. The agreement of managing agency was executed on October 29,1928, and the agreement provided that the assessee firm should act as the managing agents of the managed company for a period of 30 years from November 9,1933.The agreement fixed the remuneration that was to be paid to the managing agency firm, and the remuneration fixed was that it was to get every year 20 per cent, on the net profits of the company. There was also a provision that if during any year the net profit exceeded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000, the amount of such excess over Rs. 1,00,000 up to a limit of Rs. 24,000 was to be paid to the managing agents as their remuneration, and it was. further provided that if the profits exceeded R...
Ciba Dyes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom242; (1953)55BOMLR1003; ILR1954Bom548; [1954]25ITR102(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited company carrying on business of Import of dyestuffs and chemicals from its parent company, Ciba, Ltd., Basle, Switzerland. Its representative in India is one T. F. Kharawala and his business is to push the sales of the Ciba, Ltd.2. There was an agreement dated October 29, 1928, between the assessee company and Khara-wala. Under that agreement the assessee company agreed to pay to Kharawala 12 1/2 per cent, on net sales. This 12 1/2 per cent, included all contingency expenses which the representative had to bear himself. In 1935 this commission of 12 1/2 percent, was split up and 5 per cent, was specifically allowed to the representative for making contingency expenses. A letter was written by the company to its representative on October 20, 1947, in which it was stated that the 5 per cent, allowed to the representative was to meet contingency expenses, which, according to the assessee company, consisted of commission to dyeing masters, agents, e...
Durgadas Tulsiram Sood Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1955Bom82; (1954)56BOMLR188; 1955CriLJ289; ILR1954Bom554
Vyas, J. 1. These are two appeals by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Appeal No. 672 is an appeal by accused No. 2 and Appeal No. 807 is an appeal by accused No. 1. These are appeals from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by which judgment the learned Magistrate has convicted both the accused of offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 465 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34, Section 471 read with Sections 465 and 34 and Section 420 read with Section 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Originally there were three accused persons in this case. The gravamen of the charge against them was that there was a criminal conspiracy between them to forge an auditors' certificate the purport of which was to show that the past imports of Goldberg India Ltd., for the year 1947-48 received at the port of Bombay were of the value of Rs. 1,15,710 and the purpose of which was to induce the Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay,...
SaifudIn Alimohamed and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1953
Reported in: [1954]25ITR237(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised on this reference is of some difficulty and complexity and the difficulty and complexity is by no means resolved by the taxing department taking a particular view of the law at one stage and taking a different view of the law at one stage and taking a different view at another. 2. The facts are few and simple. One Hydarali Hasanally died in January, 1944, leaving behind him two minor daughters. He left some immoveable property and he also left behind him a business which was the business of a restaurant called the New Coronation Durbar Hotel. Mr. Justice Blagden on the May 18, 1944, appointed two guardians of the two minors and he authorised the guardians to continue the business of the New Coronation Durbar Hotel and he also ordered that the guardians should collect and recover the income, rents and profits of the hotel and the immoveable properties and to pay out of the income all necessary expenses of the management of the hotel and all the collect...
SaifudIn Alimohamed and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom219; (1953)55BOMLR1007; ILR1954Bom505
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised on this reference is of some difficulty and complexity and the difficulty and complexity is by no means resolved by the Taxing Department taking a particular view of the law at one stage and taking a different view at another.2. The facts are few and simple. One Hydarali Hasanally died in January 1944 leaving behind him two minor daughters. He left some immoveable property and he also left behind him a business which was the business of a restaurant called the New Coronation Durbar Hotel. Mr. Justice Blagden on May 18, 1944, appointed two guardians of the two minors and he authorised the guardians to continue the business of the New Coronation Durbar Hotel and he also ordered that the guardians should collect and recover the income, rents and profits of the hotel and the immoveable properties and to pay out of the income all necessary expenses of the management of the hotel and all the collection and other outgoings in respect of the business and immo...
Amy Rusi Bhesania Vs. Framroz Ardeshir Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1953
Reported in: (1954)56BOMLR910
Desai, J.1. This is an originating summons taken out by the plaintiffs for the construction of certain clauses in the will of one Amiroon Jehangir Irani, of Poona, who died on December 23, 1945, having prior thereto made a will in the Gujarat! language and character on May 28, 1945. By her will she appointed defendants Nos, 1 and 2 and one Ilustomji as executors and trustees. The executors applied for and obtained probate of that will from the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, in September 1947. Rustomji died after probate was obtained.2. The deceased died leaving her surviving as her heir and next of kin a daughter, Piroja, children and widow of a predeceased son Jehangir, who are defendants Nos. 3 to 9 before me, and the widow of a predeceased son Mcherwan, Maneekbai, who is defendant No. 1,0. Piroja died intestate on June 28, 1049, leaving her surviving as her only heirs plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, who are the daughters of Dowlat, a -predeceased daughter of Piroja, Plai...
Rangappa Hanamappa and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Bom285; (1954)56BOMLR115; ILR1954Bom484
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. The two appellants were charged in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The charge against them was that on 28th August, 1952, at about midnight, at Vantigod, the two accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Lakkappa, caused his death whilst he was sleeping in front of the temple of Kamdev by letting down a stone on his left side which caused injuries to him and by cutting him with an axe with the intention of causing his death or such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The accused denied the charge and pleaded innocence. 2. The assessors with whose help the trial was held were unanimously of the opinion that the charge had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against both the appellants. But the learned Judge did not agree with this opinion and came to the conclusion that the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Central, Bombay Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1953
Reported in: [1953]24ITR537(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference raises a very short question with regard to what constitutes writing off of a bad debt or doubtful debt within the meaning of Section 10 (2) (xi). 2. The assessee claimed as a permissible deduction a sum of Rs. 66,483 in the relevant year, and his case was that this amount represented debts which were irrecoverable, and it is not in issue that these before the Tribunal was that they had not been written off as a required by the section and therefore they were not permissible deductions. 3. Now, what Section 10 (2) (xi) requires is that the amount must be actually written off as irrecoverable. What the assessee did in this case was that he debited two amounts of Rs. 57,358 and Rs. 9,125 to the profit and loss account. Rs. 57,358 was credited to Asami Sughbawd Lena account, which means person who have become insolvent or who have failed to pay and the entry itself shows that in as much as these persons had failed in the forward business these amounts were b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »