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.
Kishinchand Chellaram and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom282; [1956]29ITR993(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessees are father Kishinchand Chellaram, his two sons Shewakram and Lokumal and grandson Murli Tahilram. A private limited company called Chellson Ltd., was incorporated in 1941 and its shareholders were Kishinchand, his two sons and grandson. We are concerned with the assessment of these four individuals for the assessment year 1945-46, and our decision with regard to Kishinchand will also apply to the facts relating to the assessment of his two sons and grandson. 2. It appears that in the year of account of these assessees, which was the financial year 1944-45, this limited company passed a resolution on the July 15, 1944, declaring a dividend at 60% and pursuant to this resolution a sum of Rs. 30,000 was credited to Kishinchand's account on the September 29, 1944. An extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders was held on the December 4, 1947, and at that meeting a resolution was passed that the company had discovered that the dividends were paid not only...
Prataprai Manmohandas Vs. Sheo Narayan Balal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom97
1. This revisional application raises a Short point of jurisdiction. A suit has been filed against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes, at Bombay and in this suit Rs. 1,859-8-0 is claimed by the Opponents in respect of forward transactions of bullion that took place in June 1949. The petitioners and the Opponents were and are members of the Bombay Bullion Association Ltd., and the point which was raised by the Petitioners in the trial Court was that under bye law 38 of the Association the suit was incompetent inasmuch as a dispute like the present between members of the Association had to be submitted to arbitration. The learned trial Judge upheld this plea. Oil appeal a different view has been taken. In the result, the dismissal of the suit has been set aside and the matter has been sent back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 2. it is common ground that both the parties were and are members of the Association and that bye-law 38 governs their dealings. T...
Devshankar Gangaram Mehta Vs. Bachubha Devsing Chudasama and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom113
Vyas, J.1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India by Devshankar Ganga-ram Mehta who is the original landlord. This applicant made an application No. 3067 of 1950 in the Court of the Tenancy Aval Karkun at Dhan-dhuka and the relief which he asked for in the application was to recover possession of survey Nos. 404, 321, 322, 294, 295, 293, 296 and 131 in the Sim of Zinzar. It was an application under Section 34 (1), Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Aval Karkun held that the present Opponent No. 1 Bachubha Devising Chudasama was a protected tenant of only some survey numbers out of the survey numbers in respect of which the landlord had asked for the relief of posses-sion viz., that he was a protected tenant of survey Nos. 131, 321 and 322 of the Sim of Zinzar. The Tenancy Aval Karkun further held that the applicant before him required the lands for bona fide personal cultivation. In respect of the notice which the applicant la...
Ambalal Kesherbhai Vs. Ranchhodbhai Jerbhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom120
1. Respondent No. 1 had filed suit from which the present appeal arises lor specific performance of an agreement for sale of property entered into between him and the owner of the property, respondent No. 2 who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court. The agreement is dated 13-12-1946.The appellant is the subsequent transferee of the property from respondent No. I, and it was his case that prior to the agreement bet-ween respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 had entered into an agreement With him orally on 27-11-1946 to convey the same property to him and that the subsequent sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 was in pursuance of the prior oral agreement. He also claimed in the alternative that he did not know of oral agreement. He also claimed in the alter, native that he did not know of the agreement between the respondents and was a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the agreement in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. The learned trial Judge has held th...
Sobhachand Chandmal and anr. Vs. Ganu Hanmanta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom143
1. The plaintiff filed suit No. 161 of 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pimpalgaon, against the defendant for a decree for Rs. 700 as rent for the years Shake 1369 and 1870 of Section No. 7 and the guava garden therein with future interest and costs of the suit. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs of Section No. 7 of the village of Ambevanl which contained a guava garden.According to the plaintiffs the defendant had taken the land at a rental of Rs. 400/- and the defendant had agreed to pay Rs. 200/- for the guava garden; and the aggregate amount of annual rent payable by the defendant was accordingly Rs. 600/-.2. The defence of the defendant was that the agreed rent was Rs. 180 per annum and he had paid the full amount of rent and nothing was due by him. The defendant denied that he had agreed to pay rent at the rate of RS. 200./-for the guava garden or that he had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- for ...
Tarabai Raoji Vs. Yestar Tukaram Nathoji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom679
1. This second appeal arises out of Suit No. 637 of 1947 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance of a contract for sale of the suit house and for possession. One Tukaram Nathoji-father of the first defendant was originally the owner of Municipal Nos. 7456 and 5750 in Ward No. 12 in the town of Ahmednagar.The first defendant was entitled to a 5/6th share in that house, and the remaining 1/6th share was owned by the second defendant. On 17-8-1948 the first defendant entered into an agreement to sell the whole house to the plaintiff for Rs. 3,500/-and to execute a sale deed after taking Letters of Administration of the property which was bequeathed to her under the wills of her father Tuka-ram and her mother Vithabai.The first defendant thereafter failed to obtain letters of Administration and she did not execute a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed Suit No. 637 of 1947 for specific performance of the agreement to sell the proper...
Ramdas Dossa and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR1001(Bom)
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 Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the five payments made in the assessment year 1944-45 a payment of Rs. 16,77,875 to C. H. Ghanekar, Rs. 54,100 to Narayandas Joharmal, Rs. 34,875 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 Keshardeo Hanumanbux, were not genuine payments of profit and therefore he included these profits in the assessment of the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment order and when the matter came to the Tribunal the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer submi...
Joseph Kay, K.B.E. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR774(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Although the question arising out of this reference has been elaborately and ingeniously argued, it is really a very simple one. The assessee Sir Joseph Kay is a resident of this country and he was assessed to tax in the assessment year 1952-53 and in his total income the income arising or accruing to him outside the taxable territories was also included and in this income was included a sum of $ 500 which the assessee was entitled to receive in the United Kingdom from three insurance companies under annuity policies which he had taken out with those insurance companies, and the only dispute which is the subject-matter of this reference is whether the sum of $ 500 has been correctly included in the total income of the assessee or the correct amount that should have been included is $ 225.2. In fact, the assessee actually received from these three insurance companies $ 225 and the contention of Mr. Palkhivala is that what is liable to tax is the amount actually received b...
State Vs. Kantilal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom230; 1956CriLJ496; [1956]7STC413(Bom)
ORDER1. The accused Kantilal Maganlal Patel of Ahmedabad was charged with having committed offences under Section 465 read with Section 471 of the Penal Code and Section 36(g), Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. If, was the case for the prosecution that the accused was given a registration certificate under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and was doing business in the name of Shobha Engineering Works at Ahmedabad. The accused sent quarterly statements ending 30-6-1949 and was called upon to verify the same with his accounts.At that time the accused produced his account books and on inspection of those books it was found that the accused had prepared a bill for Rs. 212-8-0 showing that certain goods were sold in the Bombay State to a registered party though in fact the goods had been sent outside the State. The accused produced the forged bill before the Sales Tax Inspector, Ahmedabad.On these facts sanction was obtained from the Sales Tax Collector and the accused was prosecuted. At the trial the ac...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom442; [1956]30ITR664(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assesses is a textile Mill situated in Bhavnagar and in the assessment years 1943-44 & 1944-45 it effected sales of the goods manufactured by it, and the Question that arose for the consideration of the Income Tax Tribunal was -- whether the sale proceeds had been received in Bhavnagar or in the taxable territories. 2. While this matter was pending before the Tribunal, this Court gave its judgment' in --'Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax' AIR 1952 Bom 305 (A), and the judgment was delivered on 17-9-1951. In that case we pointed out that if sale proceeds were remitted by cheque to Bhavnagar, then the receipt of the cheque in Bhavnagar constituted the first receipt and therefore the amount so received was not liable to tax under Section 4 (1) (a), Income-tax Act. In that case it was also sought to be argued by Mr. Joshi that even though cheques may be received by post the assessee may constitute the post office its agent and if the cheques were posted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »