Mumbai Court March 1954 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.
Royal Insurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul Mahomed Meheralli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1954
Reported in: [1954]24CompCas98(Bom)
Coyajee, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the applicants who are an insurance company asking that they may be allowed to defend the suit in the name of the defendant and make and file their written statement of defence in the name of the defendant. It is apparent that the suit is filed for damages against the owner of the motor cycle, the defendant, for injuries caused by the defendant by a rash and negligent act. It is alleged on behalf of the applicants that the defendant has gone away to Africa and his exact whereabouts today are unknown and that the service on the defendant has been effected only by substituted service. Now, normally the company would be entitled to intervene only under Section 96 if the cause of action falls under any of heads set out in Section 96 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and not in any other case. The applicants invoke the help of this court on the ground that it would be most inequitable to allow a decree to be passed against the defendant w...
B.P. Mahalaxmiwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom22; (1954)56BOMLR727; ILR1954Bom990
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference is concerned with a trust created by Mr. P.D. Mahalaxmiwala on 11-2-1947. The trustees of the trust were assessed to the income they received for the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51. The assessment was made upon the trustees at the maximum rate, and the question that arises is whether the first proviso to Section 41(1) is satisfied and the Taxing Department is entitled to tax the income in the hands of the trustees at the maximum rate.2. Now, the provisions in the trust deed are that the trustees are to pay to the son of the settlor Minocher and his wife Mehra until the death of the survivor of them such portion of the income as may be necessary for their maintenance and they have to accumulate the balance of the income. After a period of eighteen years the accumulated income is to be divided equally between Sam and Ajmai who are the son and daughter of Minocher and Mehra, Discretion is also given to the trustees to apply out of the corpus a...
Bhogilal Laherchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom16; (1954)56BOMLR718; ILR1954Bom1093
FACTSThe following questions of law were referred to the High Court:(1) Whether the sums of Rs. 43, 210 each, being interest earned respectively by Mahesh, Bhogilal and Arvind Bhogilal, the minor sons of the assessee, on the amounts standing to their credit in the firm are liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under S. 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act? (2) Whether the premia paid out of the moneys belonging to the minors, Mahesh Bhogilal and Arvind Bhogilal, for effecting insurance on their respective lives are entitled to exemption under S. 15 of the Act? Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is a very simple one and not capable of much elaboration. The assessee started a partnership business along with his major son and he admitted to the benefit of this partnership his two minor sons. In the assessment year 1950-51 the share of the profit of each of the minors came to Rs. 1,05,077 and this amount was included in the income of the asse...
Navinchandra Mafatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom550; (1954)795BOMLR56; [1955]27ITR245(Bom)
FACTS 1. The Following questions of law were referred to the High Court:(1) Whether the orders of the Income-tax Officer, dated 23-1-1950 are appealable? (2) Whether it was incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to take action under S. 34 of Indian Income-tax Act before he revised the assessments on 23-1-1950? (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether the bar of limitation specified in S. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act would apply to the inclusion in the total income of a shareholder the dividend which is deemed to have been distributed under S. 23A(1) of the Act? Chagla, C.J.2. This reference raises a very important and a very interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 23-A, Income-tax Act. The facts leading up to the reference may be briefly stated. The assessee is the legal representative of Mafatlal Gagalbhai and he has been assessed in that capacity. The assessment order against him for the assessment year 1942-43 was passed on 28-2-1946, and w...
Ranchhoddas Karsondas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom543; (1954)56BOMLR722; ILR1954Bom984; [1954]26ITR105(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The answer which we have to give to the questions submitted to us on this reference is both simple and obvious. A public notice was issued under Section 22((1) and the period fixed under that section was 65 days. The notice was issued in respect of the assessment year 1945-46 and that was on the 1st of May, 1945. The assessee made a return on the 5th of January, 1950, and in the return he showed his assessable income as Rs. 1,935. He added a footnote to his return to the following effect : 'My wife has sold her old ornaments and deposited the sum of Rs. 59,026 in the firm of Assar Syndicate in which I am partner.' 2. On the 27th of February, 1950, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice upon the assessee under Section 34 and he made an assessment order on the 26th of February, 1951, holding that the sum of Rs. 59,026 constituted the income of the assessee and assessing him to tax on that income. Now, it is this assessment order that was challenged before the Tribunal by t...
Trikamlal Girdharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom25; (1954)56BOMLR675; ILR1954Bom976
Chagla, C.J.FACTS 1. One Trikamlal (assessee), who was the karta of a Hindu undivided family, made the following return of his income for the assessment year 1945-46, the corresponding accounting year being samvat year 2000. The total of the income received by the assessee in the British India was shown as Rs. 1,18,727 made up of the following heads of income: Business, Rs. 71,620; Interest on securities, Rs. 88; Property, Rs. 16,092; Dividends, Rs. 28,619 and other sources Rs. 2,308. The assessee had also business in Part State and in this business there was a loss of Rs. 52,432 and he also received dividends on shares in the Part State in the sum of Rs. 66,045.The Income-tax Department computed the assessee's British Indian income at Rs. 1,18,727 liable to be taxed at the rate appropriate to Rs. 128092, his total income after rectification under S. 35. The assessee contended that his British Indian income should be computed at Rs. 66,295 (Rs. 1,18,727 minus Rs. 52,432).The Appellate ...
Tricumlal Girdharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: [1954]25ITR565(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. We are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the corresponding accounting year being Samvat Year 2000, and in the return which the assessee made of his income, he showed first the income which he had received in British India and that income was Rs. 71,620 for business, Rs. 88 for interest on securities, Rs. 16,092 for property and Rs. 28,619 for dividends and Rs. 2,308 from other sources. The total of this income was Rs. 1,18,727. 2. Now, the assessee had also business in a Part B State and in the business which he carried on in the Part B State there was a loss of Rs. 52,432. He also received dividends on shares in the Part B State in the sum of Rs. 66,045. Therefore the result was that as the assessee was a resident he had to show in his total income not only the income which he had received in the taxable territories but also the income which had accrued to him anywhere else, and his total income on a proper computation came to Rs. 1,32,592. In computing this t...
Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom72; (1954)56BOMLR671; ILR1954Bom1087
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference as originally presented to us seemed to confront us with a very formidable problem, but when the matter is analysed a little as it happens in most matters that arise under the Income-tax Act, really the question that we have to decide is a very simple one.2. The facts on which the reference is based may be briefly stated. The assessee company holds shares of the Bombay Burma Trading Corporation and in the year of assessment, 1939-40, the year of account toeing April 1938 to March 1939, it received dividends in respect of those shares amounting to Rs. 6,36,279. The Burma Company was subjected to tax in respect of the Income represented by that dividend in the sum of Rs. 1,17,987. Therefore, in the assessment of the assessee company, by reason of Section 16(2), Income-tax Act and by the process of what is known as grossing up, the dividend income was shown as Rs. 8,04,266, being made up of the net dividend received by the assessee company and by the tax paid...
Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1954
Reported in: [1954]24CompCas359(Bom); [1954]26ITR241(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference as originally presented to us seemed to confront us with a very formidable problem, but when the matter is analysed a little, as it happens in most matters that arise under the Income-tax Act, really the question that we have to decide is a very simple one. 2. The facts on which the reference is based may be briefly stated. The assessee company holds shares of the Bombay Burma Trading Corporation and in the year of assessment, 1939-40, the year of account being April, 1938, to March, 1939, it received dividends in respect of those shares amounting to Rs. 6,86,279. The Burma Co. was subjected to tax in respect of the income represented by that dividend in the sum of Rs. 1,17,987. Therefore in the assessment of the assessee company, by reason of Section 16(2) of the Income tax Act and by the process of what is known as grossing up, the dividend income was shown as Rs. 8,04,266, being made up of the net dividend received by the assessee company and by the tax...
C.S. Lal Vs. Shaikh Badshah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom75; (1954)56BOMLR859; ILR1954Bom1227; (1956)IILLJ457Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Desai who on a petition filed by the respondents held that the Authority under the Pay-ment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain the application made by them and his order dismissing the application on the ground of want of jurisdiction was an erroneous order.2. The facts briefly are that the petitioners were servants in the G. T. P. Railway prior to June 1947 and under a notification issued by the railway authorities, - to which attention will be drawn presently, they provisionally opted for Pakistan and they went to Pakistan in June 1947. They returned to India on 10-2-1948, and reported themselves for service to the Railway Authority. They were ultimately absorbed in the Railway service on 1-5-1948. They then claimed their wages from 10-2-1948 to 1-5-1948, and the Railway Authority's contention was that they were entitled towages only from 1-5-1948, and not for any earlier period.They thereupon presented various a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »