Mumbai Court February 1955 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.
Bhogilal Bhagwandas Joint Account Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR471(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is whether the provisions of section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act have been correctly applied. That section confers upon the Excess Profits Tax Officer a power to make such adjustments as respects liability to excess profits tax as he considers appropriate so as to counteract the avoidance or reduction of liability to excess profits tax which has been brought about by a transaction or transactions, and this power can be exercised provided the Officer is of the opinion that the main purpose for which the transaction or transactions were effected was the avoidance or reduction of excess profits tax.2. Now, the facts which led up to the exercise of the power under this section of the Excess Profits Tax Act may be briefly stated. Before the Excess Profits Tax Act came into force there were two registered partnerships and we will call them for convenience partnership A and partnership B. Partnership A consisted of 3 partners and...
Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, K ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1955
Reported in: [1955]27ITR700(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee who lost a certain amount a result of the defalcation of its employee is entitled to claim that amount as a permissible deduction. 2. Now, the facts are that one Chhaganbhai was a cashier of the assessee company and one of the duties entrusted to him was to go to the bank in which the moneys of the assessee company were kept and withdrawn the moneys and bring the moneys to the office of the company for making payments from time to time in cash. In the course of discharging his duties Chhaganbhai defalcated various amounts aggregating to Rs. 53,000. When these defalcations took place between May, 1946, and April, 1947, and when the defalcations were discovered the company took from Chhaganbhai a promissory note for Rs. 21,000. This promissory note was taken on the 28th of April, 1947. A criminal prosecution was launched against Chhaganbhai and certain amount was spent in connection with this litigation and...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Nandlal Gandalal, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom389; (1955)57BOMLR440; [1955]27ITR591(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather interesting and important question arises on this reference, and the question is whether under the circumstances of the case a Hindu undivided family was resident in the taxable territories within the meaning of the Income-tax Act.2. Now, one or two facts only need be stated in order to decide the question that has been submitted to us. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in cloth at Wadhwan in Kathiawar which was at the relevant date outside the taxable territories. Two coparceners of this family, Gandalal and Nandlal, became partners in the business of Amulakh Amichand & Co. which was carried on in the taxable territories. The question that falls to be considered and decided is whether the fact that the two coparceners of a Hindu undivided family carried on business in partnership within the taxable territories renders the Hindu undivided family a resident within the meaning of the Income-tax Act.3. Turning to the definition of a resident, when i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay Vs. Govindram Seksaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: [1955]27ITR653(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51 and earlier years by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section VI (Central) Bombay. The jurisdiction of this Officer to assess the assessee is not in the question. The head officer of the assessee was at Indore and the Income-tax Act did not apply to Indore which was prior to 1950 an Indian State. Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1950 made the Income-tax Act applicable to the whole of India excepting Kashmir which included Madhya Bharat and Indore. The assessee was assessed by the same officer for the assessment year 1951-52, and the contention put forward by the assessee was that by reason of the application of the Indian Income-tax Act to Indore the jurisdiction which was rightly vested in the Income-tax Officer became divested. This contention of the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal and we have now to examine whether the Tribunal was correct in the view that it took. 2. Now, on the 18th ...
Charandas Haridas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom343; (1955)57BOMLR430; [1955]27ITR691(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Although the reference has been very elaborately argued it really raises a very short and simple question. It is merely a question of fact, and the question turns upon whether there were materials before the Tribunal upon which the finding of fact was arrived at, and the fact in question is whether the income in the share of the commission agency of certain mills was the income of a Hindu joint family or the income of the coparceners constituting the family. 2. Now, the assessee is a Hindu undivided family and this Hindu undivided family was receiving a share in the managing agency commission of various companies which were managed by a partnership firm, and in this partnership firm, the joint Hindu family had a share, and the joint Hindu family was represented in the partnership by Charandas Haridas as the karta. What was contended before the department was that by a memorandum executed by the coparceners a partial partition of the assets of the joint Hindu family was b...
Rameshchandra Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom346; (1955)57BOMLR560; 1955CriLJ1239; ILR1955Bom781
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate 16th Court, Esplanade, directing that the appellant should be bound over in the sum of Rs. 100 for six months. This order came to be passed in this way. On 7-7-1954, an order was passed against the appellant externing him from the limits of Greater Bombay. This order was passed under Section 57, Bombay Police Act, 22 of 1951.Contrary to this order, and in violation of it the appellant returned to Greater Bombay on 4-11-1954. Thereupon he was arrested and for committing the breach of the order he was charged before the learned Magistrate under Section 142 of the main Act. The appellant urged before the learned Magistrate that he had deliberately violated the order because he wanted to test the validity of the externment order.The validity of the order was challenged by him on several grounds. The learned Magistrate was not disposed to accept any of those grounds. That is why he convicted...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Bombay Vs. Govind Ram Seksaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom387; (1955)57BOMLR436; ILR1955Bom773
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1950-51 & earlier years by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section VI (Central), Bombay. The jurisdiction of this officer to assess the assessee is not in question. The head office of the assessee was at Indore and the Income-tax Act did not apply to Indore which was prior to 1950 an Indian State.Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1950 made the Income-tax Act applicable to the whole of India excepting Kashmir which included Madhya Bharat and Indore. The assessee was assessed by the same officer for the assessment year 1951-52, and the contention put forward by the assessee was that by reason of the application of the Indian Income-tax Act to Indore the jurisdiction which was rightly vested in the Income-tax Officer became divested. This contention of the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal and we have now to examine whether the Tribunal was correct in the view that it took. 2. Now, on 18-4-1939, under...
Ambalal Kashiram Vs. Sharadagavri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR499
Chainani, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, while the plaintiff has filed cross-objection. The plaintiff, who is the wife of the defendant, filed the present suit for obtaining judicial separation under Section 4 of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, on the ground that her husband, the defendant, had married again. The defendant resides at Nasik; but the suit was filed at Ahmedabad, where the plaintiff resides, with the permission of the Court. It was transferred to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, for disposal. It was not disputed before him that the defendant had taken another wife, after he had married the plaintiff. The learned Judge, therefore, passed a decree for judicial separation. He directed the defendant to pay Ks. 25 per month as alimony to the plaintiff, and placed a charge for the payment of this amount on the house belonging to the defendant at Nasik.2. The only point which has been urged by Mr. Patwardhan in this appeal is that the learned Judge had no ju...
Haridas Achratlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1955
Reported in: (1955)57BOMLR425; [1955]27ITR684(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was a shareholder of the Gujarat Corporation Ltd. This company had a share capital of Rs. 1,00,000 divided into 1,000 share of Rs. 100 each. With regard to 960 shares only Rs. 35 were paid up on each share. The remaining 40 shares were fully paid up. The company passed a resolution on the 5th December, 1946, which it converted the partly paid up 960 shares into fully paid up shares by transferring a sum of Rs. 62,400 out of the undistributed profits of the company. The company went into liquidation on the 1st May, 1949. The liquidator realised the total assets of Rs. 1,61,000. The assessee who held 251 shares received a dividend of Rs. 22,590 from the liquidator in the year of account, and the Taxing Department held that the dividend was covered by the definition of 'dividend' in section 2 (6A) (c) of the Income-tax Act and therefore liable to tax, and it is in respect of this distribution of the assets of the company in liquidation that three questions have...
Kamlabai Vs. Devram Sona Bodgujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Bom300; (1955)57BOMLR568; ILR1955Bom749
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal raises a short question under Section 5, Sub-section (3), Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 22 of 1947. The plaintiff, who is a Hindu wife, brought a suit against her husband and prayed that the marriage between her and the defendant should be dissolved on the ground that she had been deserted by her husband continuously for a period exceeding four years before the date of the suit and that on orabout 18-3-1952, the defendant had married again another wife with whom he was living.2. It appears that the father of the plaintiff originally belonged to Madhya Pradesh, but he came to the State of Bombay for maintenance and has been residing within the State of Bombay for several years before the institution of this suit. His place of residence during this period has been Amalner, where he is working as a millhand in a local mill. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant took place in Madhya Pradesh at Fopnar in or about 1945. The defendant has always be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »