Mumbai Court February 1955 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR8(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Two questions arise on this reference, one is the proper period of limitation in the case of an appeal preferred under the Business Profits Tax Act against a decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the other question is whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay if the appeal is out of time. 2. Under section 17 of the Business Profits Tax Act it is provided that : 'Any Income-tax Officer or any person in respect of whose business an order under section 12 has been passed and who objects to an order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under section 15 or section 16 may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal against such order to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that Tribunal shall have all such powers in disposing of the appeal as it has in respect of appeals preferred to it under the said Act.' 3. Rules have been framed under the Business Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Haji Aziz and Abdul Sak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom350; (1955)57BOMLR485; ILR1955Bom591; [1955]28ITR266(Bom)
FACTS:1. The following question of law was referred to the High Court-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 82,250 is an allowable expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act'Chagla, C.J. 2. In our opinion the question submitted to us by the Tribunal is capable only of one answer, although Mr. Palkhivala with considerable force has argued that it is only capable of the contrary answer.3. The facts are very brief. The assesses is an importer of dates from Iraq. At the relevant time there was a notification issued under the Imports and Exports Control Act prohibiting the import of dates by steamers. Import of dates was only permissible by country crafts. In breach of this notification the assessee imported large quantity of dates by steamers.The Customs authorities under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act confiscated the dates which bad been imported by steamers and they gave him the option under Section 183 of paying a fin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra Vs. Vij ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom404; (1955)57BOMLR480; ILR1955Bom597
Chagla, C.J.1. Two questions arise on this reference, one is the proper period of limitation in the case of an appeal preferred under the Business Profits Tax Act against a decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the other question is whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay if the appeal is out of time,2. Under Section 17, Business Profits Tax Act, it is provided that:'Any Income-tax Officer or any person in respect of whose business an order Under Section 12 has been passed and who objects to am order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Under Section 15 or Section 16 may, within the prescribed time and in the presecribed manner, appeal against such order to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that Tribunal shall have all such powers in disposing of the appeal as it has in respect of appeals preferred to it under the said Act.'Rules have been framed under the Business Profits Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Hormusji M. Kalapesi Vs. Dinbai H. Kalapesi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom413; (1955)57BOMLR791; ILR1955Bom856
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against his wife and it has been preferred against the order passed by Coyajee J. directing him to pay alimony to his wife at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. The learned Judge has also directed mat this amount should be paid from the date when the petition for alimony was presented, that is to say, front 18-9-1950. As to the costs, the learned Judge has ordered that the husband should pay the costs and the wife's costs have been fixed at a lump sum of Rs. 2,100. 2. In the present appeal, Mr. Javeri contends that the learned Judge was in error in holding that the husband was liable to pay alimony to the wife and that he was also in error in fixing the amount at Rs. 80 and in directing that the said amount should be paid from the date of the petition. The order of costs has also been challenged by Mr. Javeri. 3. This unfortunate litigation has had a very chequered career. Indeed the marriage between the parties has turned out to be a co...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.F. Ball Bearing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR479(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company is a resident company and was appointed the sole selling agent of the goods manufactured by a non-resident company of Sweden. The assessee company was appointed the statutory agents of the foreign company under section 43 of the Income-tax Act and was assessed to tax in respect of the receipts arising from the sale of the goods of the foreign company by the assessee company within the taxable territories. The assessee company contended that by reason of the agreement it sold goods as a principal and not as an agent of the foreign company. That contention is now given up by Mr. Kolah and the only contention that he has put forward is that in respect of certain transactions the sale proceeds were not received by the principal, the foreign company, in the taxable territories and to the extent that the sale proceeds were not received these receipts cannot be taxed under section 4(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.2. Now, the finding of fact is that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Maz ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom401; (1955)57BOMLR475; ILR1955Bom809; [1955]28ITR35(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited liability company (sic)irrying on the business of marine engineers and (sic)ip-repairers. It is resident and ordinarily resident, (sic)he entire share capital of the assessee company beneficially owned in equal shares by two British companics, the P. and O. Steam Navigation Co. and the British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. The business of the assessee company includes repair and maintenance of shins and an arrangement was arrived at between the assessee company and the P. and O. Steam Navigation Co. and the British India Steam Navigation Co, that the assesses company will repair the ships of these two companies at cost price and will charge no profit.Therefore the result of the assessee company carrying on the business of repairing ships of these two British companies was that it made no profit for the relevant assessment years. The income-tax authorities took the view that Section 42(2) applied to the case. They worked out the profit which wo...
Tag this Judgment!Bipinchandra Maganlal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom402; (1955)57BOMLR471; ILR1955Bom797; [1955]28ITR1(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is as (sic)hat are the actual profits of the assessee com-(sic) for the assessment year 1947-48 which the In-(sic)e-tax Officer must take into consideration in exercising his powers under Section 23A of the Income-tax2. The assessee company is a company in which (sic) public is not substantially interested within the (sic)eaning of Section 23A of the Act, and in the assessment (sic)ar it showed as its net profit Rs. 33,245. The Income-tax authorities assessed the profit at Rs. (sic)761, and apart from other minor adjustments, (sic)ibstantially the increase was brought about by adding to the net profit of the assessee company a sum of Rs. 15,608. This sum was included for the following reasons.A certain machinery was purchased by the assessee company in December 1945 for Rs. 89,000 and it was sold in March 1947 for the same amount. The written down value of this machinery was Rs. 73,392. Therefore, it realised on sale Rs. 15,608 ...
Tag this Judgment!ismailia GraIn Merchants Association Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1958Bom32; (1957)59BOMLR521
Chagla, C. J. 1. The assessee is a private company limited by guarantee and it was incorporated on the 31st August 1944. Before the incorporation the Association had passed a certain resolution and that resolution was that after rationing week S6 and since 57th week, Mobadla at the rate of 8 annas per bag is to be collected from every rationing shop and for the shops which have registered less than 1,000 units on rationing cards Mobadla at the rate of 4 annas per bag is to be charged. Out of the proceeds of the Mobadla thus collected as above 25 p.c. will be utilised towards office expenses and charity and the balance of 75 p.c. will be distributed amongst members as Mobadla. Therefore, briefly, the scheme was this. It was not possible for all members of the Association to get a ration card. The Association used its good office to get ration cards for some of its members. As these members benefited by obtaining ration cards and other members were with out ration cards, those who obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Kashibai Martand Vs. Vinayak Ganesh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom65; (1955)57BOMLR918; ILR1955Bom999
Gajendkagadkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose claim to redeem the suit mortgage has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The claim has been dismissed on the ground that the execution of the mortgage-deed is not proved by the plaintiff. 2. The question about the proof of the execution of the mortgage-deed came to be raised in the present litigation in this way. The property in suit originally belonged to Baburao Ganesh Junnarkar, and according to the plaint it was mortgaged by Baburao to Vinayak Malwadkar on 1-6-1897. Baburao on his death, left behind him surviving his widow Laxmi and his daughter Radhabai. Laxmi died in 1918 and Radhabai in 1934. Before her death, Radhabai executed a will on 26-12-1933. The plaintiff is the legatee under this will in respect of the property in suit. That is how she claims to be the owner of the equity of redemption in respect of the mortgage in suit and wants to redeem that mortgage. On the mortgagee's side several transactions hav...
Tag this Judgment!J.C. Thakkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom340; (1955)57BOMLR464; [1955]27ITR658(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather unusual question arises on this reference. On the findings of fact to which we shall presently draw attention the assessee has been found to be a partner of an unregistered firm, and he has been assessed to tax on his share of profits in that firm. The unregistered firm has not been assessed and the contention of the assessee is that his assessment is illegal inasmuch as the unregistered firm of which he is a partner was not assessed to tax. 2. Now, it appears that the assessee at the relevant time was a director of the International Bank of India Ltd. The accounting year was from the 1st of April, 1944, to the 31st of March, 1945, and the assessment year 1945-46, and in this year of account he and two others Nanjibhai Khalidas Mehta and Chunilal Khushaldas engaged in a joint venture to operated on the Stock Exchange, and as a result of this joint venture the persons made a profit of Rs. 2,73,130. The assessee's share out of this profit was Rs. 1,16,543. It app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »