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.
Nagayya Gurupadayya Charantimath and anr. Vs. Chayappa Santanappa Huil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom560; (1956)58BOMLR144; ILR1956Bom232
Vyas, J. 1. A short point which has arisen in this application, which is filed by the tenants under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may be stated in this way. There is an application filed by a landlord under Section 34, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before a Mamlatdar for recovering possession of his lands from his tenant for bona fide personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar considered certain questions of fact, including a question whether the landlord required possession of his lands for bona fide personal cultivation, and came to the conclusion that the landlord wanted possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation and ordered the tenant to hand over possession to him.On the tenant appealing to the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector disposed of the appeal only upon a preliminary point raised by the tenant, viz., whether in view of a certain entry in respect of the lands in the record of rights, the respondent before him had es...
Joseph Kay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom577; (1956)58BOMLR126; ILR1956Bom165
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 assesses Sir Joseph Kay is a resident of this country and he was assessed to tax in the assessment year 1852-53 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...
M.K. Kirtikar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR908(Bom)
1. By this application, M. K. Kirtikar, the assessee, requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court some four questions of law, which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 5713 of 1951-52. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order we hereby draw up a statement of the case agreed to by the parties and refer it to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee's representative wants us to make the reference application and the Commissioner's reply thereto a part of the case which we see no reason to do. Total 2. The assessee was an employee of Dadajee Dhackjee & Co., Bombay, at the relevant time, In S. Y. 2000 (30th October, 1943, 17th October, 1944) he was paid by Dadajee Dhackjee & Co., (hereinafter referred to as the firm) commission at the rate of 1 per cent of its turnover in its colour department. As a matter of fact, three employees were paid commi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Homi Mehta's Executors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR928(Bom)
1. By these applications, which are consolidated, the Commissioner of Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City I, requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court a question of law which is said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 7032 and E. P. T. A. No. 547 of 1951-52. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order, we hereby draw up a statement of the case agreed to by the parties and refer it to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The late Sir Homi Mehta, hereinafter referred to at times, as the assessee, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1942-43, the year of account being the calendar year 1941 on a total income of Rs. 14,16,274 after deduction of excess profits tax of Rs. 2,37,665. The total income before deduction of E. P. T was Rs. 16,53,939 which included a sum of Rs. 11,00,000 taken by the Income-tax Officer as surplus realised by the as...
Shingounda Shidgounda Vs. Ganesh Yeshwant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom243
1. The plaintiff is a tenant of a portion of S. No. 193 of the village of Sulkud. The defendants are Inamdars of S. No. 193. In 1873 the plaintiff's ancestor was given a half share in S. No. 193 at a fixed rental of Rs. 12-8-0 by the ancestors of the defendants. In 1873 the land was held by the defendants' ancestors free from liability to pay assessment. In 1940 the defendants claimed a right to enhance the rent.By a judgment of the Supreme Court of the former Kolhapur state the claim made by the defendants was finally negatived, and the plaintiff was declared to be a permanent tenant and liable to pay Rs. 12-3-0 as rent for the land in in his possession. It was held by the Supreme Court that the defendants were not entitled to enhance the rent. The holder of the land as Inam from the Kolhapur State, died on 18-94943, and an heirship enquiry was started by the Kolhapur Government.The Kolhapur State Government then started levying full assessment on the land S. No. 193, and they levied ...
Anant Shamrao and anr. Vs. Nensukh Bherulal Kucheriya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom252
1. The facts which give rise to this second appeal are the following. The plaintiff filed suit No. 373 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Dhulia for a decree for Rs. 663/- against the defendants. It was the plaintiff's case that land bearing S. No. 52/A of the town of Dhulia belonged to the second defendant, that the second defendant divided the land into plots for conversion to building site and got prepared a plan of the land showing the plots separately and advertised them for sale through the first defendant, who held a power of attorney from the second defendant; that the plaintiff came to learn about the advertisement and approached the first defendant on 17-5-1948; that the first defendant showed Mm the plans and the plaintiff selected plots Nos. 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13 and agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 2250/-, that the first defendant accepted Rs. 565/- as earnest money and undertook to exe-cute a registered sale deed on 5-6-1948; that the first defen...
Shankar Yeshwant Harale Vs. Laxmibai Pandurang Harale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom271
1. These are two second appeals which arise out of the decree passed in Suit No. 212 of 1950 which was modified in Appeal No. 233 of 1951 of the file of the District Courb at Kolha-pur.2. Pandurang and Shankar were two brothers. Pandurang died in April 1949 leaving him surviving his widow Laxmibai. Laxmibai filed Suit No. 212 of 1950 in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Kolhapur, for par-tition find separate possession of her one-half share in the suit properties alleging that the suit properties were originally joint family properties, but in June 1946 her husband' Panduvang and the defendant had decided to effect a partition and in fact the house at Kolhapur was partitioned and the lands at Shiye were thereafter jointly leased by Pandurang and the defendant and the rent was shared in equal proportion by them till the death of Pandurang on 1-4-1949. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed possession of her half share in the house as well as the lands by partitio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City Vs. Homi Me ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom415; (1956)58BOMLR112; ILR1956Bom154
1. The question that arises on this reference is whether the assessee made any profit or gain by a transaction the effect of which was to transfer shares of 20 joint stock companies to a limited company called Homi Mehta and Sons Ltd. Sir Homi Mehta admittedly dealt in shares both ready and forward, and at the material date he, jointly with his sons, held shares in 26 companies including 20 companies with which we are concerned on this reference, and the cost price of these shares was Rs. 30,45,017/-. The assessee 'floated a private limited company with a capital of Rs. 60,00,000/-, and to this company he transferred several businesses in which he had a share and interest and also shares of 26 joint stock companies and the interest of Sir Homi Mehta in various businesses was valued at Rs. 23,08,281-11-0, the value of the shares of 26 joint stock companies was Rs. 40,97,000/- being their market value at the date of the transfer aggregating to Rs. 69,05,281-11-0. It appears that Sir Homi...
M.K. Kirtikar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom436; (1956)58BOMLR122; ILR1956Bom126
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee was an employee of Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. in the assessment year 1945-46, the previous year being Samvat Year 2000, from 30-10-1943 to 1/-10-1944, and in this year of account he received from his employers commission at the rate of 1 per cent on the turnover of the Company in its colour department. Apart from the assessee two other employees also received similar commission and the total commission came to Rs. 84,540/-. Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. were assessed to tax in the assessment year 1945-46 and in the assessment order out of Rs. 84,540/- paid as commission to its employees by the company Rs. 56,360/- was disallowed. The total income of the company was assessed at Rs. 4,11,084/-. In other words, as the assessment order stood, Dadajee Dhackjee & Co. was charged to tax in respect of Rs. 56,360/- although it had paid that amount as commission, because that was not considered as a permissible deduction. The assessee therefore in his own assessment claimed exe...
Gopal Sakharam Vs. Mohanlal Nagarchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom607
ORDER1. This revisional application arises from proceedings under the B. A. D. R. Act and the main question which arises for decision is whether the Court administering the provisions of the B. A. D. R. Act is entitled to consider the question as to whether a given transaction is void having regard to the provisions of para 11 of Schedule III to the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Judge answered this question in favour of the debtor, whereas the lower appellate Court has taken a contrary view. In my opinion, the view token by the lower Appellate Court is obviously right.2. The question about the infirmity in the transaction arises in this way. In 1925, Debtor No. 1 and the father of Debtor No. 2 mortgaged five lands for Rs. 3,000/-. The mortgagee sued in 1934 and obtained a decree for Rs. 5,000/- and odd. In 1939, the mortgagee sought to execute the decree and the execution proceedings were sent to the Collector under the provisions of Schedule III to the Code. On 5-6-1943 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »