Mumbai Court August 1954 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom250; (1955)57BOMLR84; ILR1955Bom268
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is the Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, an association of persons, and the main question that arises on this reference is whether the income derived by it from certain activities is exempt from tax.2. Now, the property of this trust consists of securities and immoveable properties, and no question arises on this reference as to the liability of the trust to pay tax on that income, but when the assesses went in appeal before the Tribunal against this assessment, the contention that was put forward by counsel for the Trust was that the Trust was a mutual association and it was exempt from tax in respect of services rendered to its members. That contention was not pressed before the Tribunal, but a new contention was put forward that the Trust being a charitable trust the income derived by the charitable trust was exempt from taxation. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to raise this point and answered it in its favour, and one of the questions that the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Jagadishprasad Ramnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom255; (1955)57BOMLR77
FACTS One Jagdishprasad (assessee), who was a partner in a firm styled Govindram Ramnath Co., did not pay to the Income-tax authorities advance tas as required by S. 18A(3), Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, levied penal interest for non-payment of advance tax for the relevant two years of assessment under S. 18A (8 of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer levying penal interest. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that no appeal lay to him against the imposition of penal interest by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunnal. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was an order passed under S. 31 of the Act and, therefore, an appeal lay to the Tribunal. The Tribunal further hear that an appeal lay to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Income-tac Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Jagdish Prasad Ramnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR192(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The Income-tax Officer imposed penal interest upon the assessee under section 18A(8) of the Income-tax Act in the sum of Rs. 3,549-11-0 for the assessment year 1947-48 and a sum of Rs. 9,525-2-0 in respect of the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee appealed against the imposition of this penal interest to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that no appeal lay against the penal interest imposed by the Income-tax Officer. The matter was taken to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld (sic.) the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and a question has now been submitted to us whether an appeal lies against penal interest imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 18A(8) of the Act. 2. Now, section 18A is a new section which was inserted in the Act by Act XI of 1944 and it contains a machinery for assessment of advance tax. Sub-section (1) deals with the case of an assessee who is an old assessee and who ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Zorastrian Building Societ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom273; (1955)57BOMLR73; ILR1955Bom79
FACTS 1. The Zorastrian Building society Ltd., Bombay, (assessee), owned certain buildings which were let out to tenants. For the assessment year 1951-52 the Income-tax Officer disallowed deduction on account of urban immoveable property tax on the ground that it was, tax levied by the Bombay Government and not by the local authority. The assessee's case was that the Urban immoveable property tax was levied and collected by the Municipality and paid to the Provincial Government and that, therefore, it was entitiled to deduction under the second proviso to S. 9(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer.2. The Appellate Tribunal upheld he contention of the assessee.3. The following question of law was referred to the high Court:'Whether on the facts of the case the assessee is entitiled to claim deduction of half of the urban immoveable property tax under the third proviso to S. 9(2) of the Income-tax Act from its ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Zoroastrian Building Socie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1954
Reported in: [1955]27ITR218(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee is entitled to deduct half the urban immovable property tax for the purpose of determining the bona fide annual value of the property belonging to the assessee. This question can be determined on a construction of the third proviso to section 9(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and that provides :- 'Provided further that where the property is in the occupation of tenant and the taxes levied by any local authority in respect of the property are, under the law authorising such levy, payable wholly by the owner or partly by the owner and partly by the tenant : (a) one-half of the total amount of such taxes or one-eight of the annual value of the property, whichever is less, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, be deemed to be the tenant's liability for such taxes, and (b) in determining the annual value of the property with reference to the rent payable by the tenant, a deduction shall be m...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. James Anderson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom224; (1955)57BOMLR68; (1955)57BOMLR68a; ILR1955Bom91; [1954]26ITR699(Bom)
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1.. The question is whether in the present case there is a distribution of capital assets under a will.]2. In order to be that there must be a distribution in specie. The distribution must be of the capital assets as such and not a conversion of the capital assets into money and a subsequent distrioution. The principle underlying the proviso is that the capital assets should not have changed their form. If the legatee had sold the capital assets he could have been taxed and that tax cannot be evaded by the executor selling the capital assets.3. Palkhivala. It is only a sale, exchange or transfer that attracts the provision of Section 12B. Unless there is a transfer there is no liability to tax under Section 12B. Secondly, it is only the transferor who is liable to be taxed under Section 12B. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that on inheritance there is no sale, exchange or transfer. In a case of succession the question of capital gains can never arise. The es...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Iris Chandrabala Premnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom45; (1954)56BOMLR1113; 1955CriLJ125; ILR1955Bom171
Dixit, J. 1. This revisional application has been referred to a division bench by Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar in consequence, we are informed, of Mr. Justice Shah's decision which has been reported in -- 'Naran Velji v. Ranjitsingh', : AIR1955Bom42 . The question raised is one under Section 362(4), Criminal P. C. It is one of frequent occurrence and, therefore, is of some importance.2. The facts of the case in which the questionarises are simple. The applicant was 'prosecutedbefore the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate,3rd Court, Bombay, for an offence of solicitingpersons in a street for the purpose of prostitutionunder Section 3(b), Bombay Prevention of ProstitutionAct, 1923. Section 3, so far as material, provides :'Whoever in an street or public place or placeof public resort or within sight of and in suchmanner as to be seen or heard from any streetor public place, whether from within any houseor building or not--...... (b) solicits or molests any person or loiters forthe purp...
Tag this Judgment!S. BenjamIn Vs. Ebrahim Aboobaker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR40
Tendolkar, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the respondent, the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, from giving effect to a notice of demand dated the August 10, 1953.2. The facts necessary for the determination of this petition are few. By an order dated October 23, 1951, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property notified as evacuee property the following:Right, title and interest of Shree Husein Aboobakar in the business concern called Nishat Talkies with furniture, fittings and certain machines etc. together with the tenancy right situated at Grant Road, Bombay.The case of the petitioner is that he was a partner with Husein Aboobaker and Alimahomed Aboobaker in the said business and that Husein Aboobaker and Alimahomed Aboobaker retired from the partnership and received Rs. 15,000 each in full satisfaction of their share, right, title and interest and he became the sole proprietor of that business. This contention of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhusroo Phirozshah Doctor Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom220; (1955)57BOMLR24; ILR1955Bom69
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of Shah. J. by which he dismissed a petition preferred by the appellant challenging an order of requisition made on 16-3-1954, under Section 6(4), Land Requisition Act, 1948. The view taken by Shah J. was that by the petition the petitioner was intending to go behind the declaration Of vacancy made by the State of Bombay under Section 6, Bombay Land Requisition Act and in view of the decision of this Court in -- 'Mohsinali Mohomedali v. State of Bombay', : AIR1951Bom303 , it was not open to him to go behind that declaration. It was urged before the learned Judge that a recent decision of the Supreme Court in --- 'Raj Krishna v. Binod', : [1954]1SCR913 had made an important alteration in the law and that --'Mohsinali's case (A)' may be looked upon as overruled. The learned Judge refused to take that view of the observations of the Supreme Court and proceeded to dismiss the petition.When this matter came before a Division Bench, in vi...
Tag this Judgment!Raokhan Ayubkhan Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1954
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR51
Vyas, J.1. The applicant, who is the proprietor and manager of a lodging house known as the Mandvi Central Lodge in Bombay, has been convicted of an offence under Section 131(a) of the Bombay Police Act (Act XXII of 1951) for running the said lodging house without obtaining a police licence under Section 33(w)(i) of the Act. He has been fined Rs. 50 and has further been directed under Section 131A(2) to close down his lodging house until he obtains a police licence under the Act.2. Now, there is no dispute that the applicant does not possess a police licence for running this lodging house ; but his contention is that his lodging house does not fall within the purview of Sub-section (70) of Section 2 of the Bombay Police Act, which defines a 'place of public entertainment' as any place where any kind of food or drink is supplied for consumption on the premises thereof. According to the applicant, the essential ingredient which makes a particular place a place of public entertainment, un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »