Mumbai Court September 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.
Shivram Govind Darshane Vs. Viswanath Govind Darshane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR154
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This revisional application raises a short and interesting question of law under Section 23 read with Section 218 of the Indian Contract Act. The unfortunate incidents that followed the assassination of Gandhiji are ultimately the basis of the present suit. In 1949 the family house of the parties was burnt down. As a result, criminal prosecution was started against 108 accused persons. The leaders of the village thought that, in order to restore peace and harmony amongst the communities and destroy the feeling of distrust and enmity which had spread in the village, it would be desirable to see if the prosecution against the said 108 persons could be withdrawn on the said persons agreeing to compensate the victims for the loss of property. The efforts made by the village elders succeeded and it appears that Rs. 10,800 were contributed by the 108 accused persons and the amount was distributed amongst the victims according to the terms agreed upon between the parties ...
Ramdas Dossa and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom435
Chagla, C.J.1. This is one of those unfortunate cases where moral principles cannot be given effect to by reason of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a broker and he effected various transactions in cotton in the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46 and the I. T. O. came to the conclusion that the five payments made in the assessment year 1944-45 -- a payment of Rs. 6,77,875/- to C. H. Ghanekar, Rs. 54,100/- to Narayandas Joharmal, Rs. 34,8757- to L. V. Iyer, Rs. 4,600/- to Miss P. Grant and Rs. 4,707/- to Dharsey Chapsey -- and in the assessment year 1945-46 a sum of Rs. 2,18,669/- to the same C. H. Ghanekar and a sum of Rs. 1,09,375/- to one Keshar-deo Hanumanbux, were not genuine payments of profits and therefore he included these profits in the assessment of the assessee. The A. A. C. confirmed the assessment order and when the matter came to the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the I. T. O. ana the L T. O. submitted a remand report and on that re...
Pannalal Nandlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom499; (1956)58BOMLR137; ILR1956Bom178; [1956]30ITR57(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A notice of motion has been taken out by the assessee in this reference for directing the Tribunal to raise an additional question of law. and a preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Joshi on behalf of the Commissioner that the notice of motion is barred by limitation.2. The order in respect of which the additional question of law is sought was passed on 22-12-1954 and the order was served upon the assessee on 11-1-1955, and the notice of motion is taken out on 25-7-1955. Clearly the notice of motion has been taken out more than six months after the service of the order and Mr. Joshi's contention is that the period of limitation is laid down in Section 66(2) and by reason of that period of limitation the notice of motion is barred.3. Section 66C2) deals with a case where the Appellate Tribunal refuses to state a case on the ground that no question of law arises, and it gives a right to the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, to apply to the High Court, and ...
Pannalal Nandlal Bhandari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom557; (1956)58BOMLR134; [1956]30ITR139(Bom)
1. The question that arises on this reference is a question of limitation and what was contended by the assesses was that certain notices served by the Income-tax Officer under Section 22(2) of the Act read with Section 34 were out of time and therefore the assessment pursuant to these notices was invalid in law.2. The two rival contentions we have to consider are, one that the period of limitation is eight years as contended by the department and the other is that the period of 'limitation is four years as contended by the assessee; and turning to Section 34 the period of limitation would be eight years if the case falls under Section 34(1)(a) and the period of limitation would be four years if the case falls under Section 34(1)(b).3 A case falls under Section 34(1)(a) if there is an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under Section 32; and admittedly in this case the assessee has made no return of his income under Section 32. Section 34(1)(b...
Parwat Vedu Patil and anr. Vs. Sukdev Shivram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom617; 1956CriLJ1069
ORDER1. This revisions; application arisesfrom debt adjustment proceedings. The transaction in question took place on 10-6-1927. The property which was the subject-matter of this transaction is Survey No. 193. It admeasures 17 acresand 25 gunthas. This property was ostensibly soldfor Rs. 2,000/ -.This property originally belonged to an undivided Hindu family consisting of three brothers Shivram, Shankar and Parwat. The purchaser was the brother-in-law of Shivram. In the present proceedings Parwat and Shankar pleaded that the transaction was a mortgage and they wanted the adjustment of their debts on that footing. The learned trial Judge accepted the plea of the debtors, held that the transaction was a mortgage, adjusted the debts and passed an award in their favour.In appeal, a different view has prevailed. It has been held by the lower appellate Court that the transaction was a sale. On that view, there was no question of adjusting any debts and the application of the debtors so far a...
Mallappa Virbhadrappa Vs. Vasudeorao Keshavrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom628
1. By deed Ex. 112 dated 18-5-1916 executed by one Lingappa Mudkappa Deshpande in favour of Shrimant Dhondopant Raste certain Inam land which now has Revision Survey No. 7 of the village of Kubihal in Kundgol Mahal was granted for the benefit of the Idol Vishnu. The relevant provisions of the deed Ex. 112 are as follows:'You (referring to Dhondopant Raste) have consecrated (the idol of) Vishnu of Wai Kshetra and constructed a temple (for the same). You asked (requested) me to grant in Inam some of my Inam lands for the purpose of meeting the expenses of Naivedya and Nandadeep etc. of the said temple and Idol. Hence I have given to you of my own free will in Inam as absolute Inam one Mar of Inam land situate at Kubihal which is part of our Inam property for the expenses of Naivedya and Nanda-deep etc. of the Idol Shri Vishnu..... 'This land is bound by our grass land on the east, by the Kundgol Road on the south, by Nadgis's field on the north, & by the field of Laxmangonda Patil on the...
Narsang Meghraj Vs. Shah Ranchhod Kuberdas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom686
ORDER1. This is a revisional application which raises a short question under Section 64; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act 67 of 1948), The property in dispute consists of five agricultural pieces of land. They had been mortgaged with the petitioner with possession. In 1951 the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to the mortgage In the present proceedings, which arise under Order 21, Rule 58, the petitioner claimed that he was in possession of the property as owner and so the property was not liable to be proceeded against as belonging to his mortgagor. The defence was that the sale in favour of the petitioner was invalid under Section 64 of the Tenancy Act. This plea has been accepted by the learned trial Judge, with the result that the application made by the petitioner under Order 21. Rule 58, has been rejected. 2. Mr. Karlekar for the petitioner contends that, in applying Section 64 to the sale in favour of the petitioner, the learned Judge has failed to consider t...
Emerald and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR814(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. In view of our decision in Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1948 Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Manecklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. the contention which has been raised by the assessee on this reference cannot be accepted.2. It appears that the assessee purchased 50 shares of the Bombay Dyeing and ., on the November 11, 1950, for Rs. 49,101 and on the January 9, 1951, the Bombay Dyeing issued bonus shares of the face value of Rs. 250 one bonus share being issued for one company's share held by the shareholder, and therefore the assessee company received bonus shares of the face value of Rs. 250 each. Then there were various transactions with which we are not concerned till we come to the assessment year 1952-53 corresponding to the financial year 1951-52 which is the previous year of the assessee company. At the beginning of the assessment year 1953-53 the assessee company held 350 shares of the Bombay Dying including the 50 bonus shares. Out of these it sold 300 shares and...
The North Deccan Transport Ltd. Nasik Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR937(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The short question as to the competency of an appeal arises in this reference. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had furnished an estimate of his income for the purpose of advance payment of tax which was false to his knowledge and he imposed a penalty upon him. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the appeal was dismissed, and then he appealed to the Tribunal and before the Tribunal the question arose whether the appeal was maintainable. The Tribunal took the view that the appeal did not lie.2. Section 30 is the relevant section which provides for appeals against various orders made under the Act, and there is no provision in section 30 for an appeal under section 18A(9). But the contention of the assessee is that the order is not made under section 18A(9) but it is made under section 28(1)(c) and an appeal is provided under section 30 against an order made under section 28(1)(c). When we return to the section 18A(...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Manilal Rayaram Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1955
Reported in: [1956]30ITR53(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee in the accounting year shipped 236 bales of cloth to a consignee in Mauritius. The consignment was made contrary to the directions of the government here that export to Durban was prohibited, at which port these goods were landed, and the result of this action on the part of the assessee was that the assessee's licence for exporting goods was suspended. The assessee contended that it was due to the negligence of the consignee that the goods were illegally taken to Durban and unloaded there and therefore he claimed damages from him and the matter was referred to arbitration and the assessee received Rs. 39,292-4-3 as damages. The taxing department contended that this was a revenue receipt liable to be taxed and the Tribunal held that it was not, and the Commissioner has now come on this reference. 2. In our opinion, the facts of this case are not distinguishable on principle from our decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shamsher Printing Press. That was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »