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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Crown Life Insurance Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: [1956]30ITR365(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. Three questions arise on this reference which are capable of very simple answers. The assessee is an insurance company doing insurance business. Its head office is at Toronto in Canada and it has branch office in Bombay. It appears that in the actuarial valuation as of the 31st December, 1944, the lift fund was shown at Rs. 1,20,29,894 and on an actuarial basis the liabilities in respect of subsisting policies of the policy holders amounted to Rs. 18,45,730. In order to get over this deficit the head office in Canada placed at the disposal of the branch office securities to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs and the Imperial bank was constituted a trustee in respect of those securities. These securities yielded income and in the relevant assessment year the income to Rs. 85,700 and the Income under section 12 of the Income-tax Act. The answer is that under section 10 (7) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8, 9, 10, 12 or...
Bhogilal Laherchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR919(Bom)
1. By this application, the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court one question of law, which is said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I. T. A. No. 2277 of 1953-54. 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 assessee, Bhogilal Laherchand, was partner in a firm doing business in jewellery and precious stones in the name of Bhogilal Laherchand and in machinery in the name of Batliboi & Company with effect from 17th March, 1942. Two minor sons of the assessee namely, Arvind and Mahesh, were admitted to the benefits of this partnership. A copy of the partnership deed dated 14th April, 1943, is annexure 'A' and forms part of the case. The minor son, Arvind, attained majority on 22nd August, 1950. He elected to become a partner in the firm...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Walji Damji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR914(Bom)
1. BY this application, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad, 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. 1410 of 1953-54. In-asmuch as, in out opinion, a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we hereby draw up a statement of the case to which the parties agree and refer it to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessment year under consideration is 1948-49, the 'previous year' being S. Y. 2003 (25th October, 1946, to 12th November, 1947). The assessee firm, which is unregistered in status, was constituted of the following two partners :- Share of profit or loss1. Mr. Valji Damji 0 13 0 in the rupee2. Mr. Thakersey Raiji 0 3 0 in the rupeeOwing to differences between the partners, a suit, being Civil Suit No. 62/45, was instituted by partner No. 2 i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Crown Life Insurance Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom203
Chagla, C.J. 1. Three questions arise on this reference which are capable of very simple answers. The assessee is an insurance company doing 'insurance business. Its head office is at Toronto in Canada and it has a branch office in Bombay, It appears that in the actuarial valuation as of 31-12-1944 the life fund was shown at Rs. 1,20,29,894 and on an actuarial basis the liabilities in respect of subsisting policies of the policy holders amounted to Rs. 1,38,75,624. There was therefore a deficit of Rs. 18,45,730.In order to get over this deficit the head office in Canada placed at the disposal of the branch office securities to the extent of Rs. 24 lakhs and the Imperial Bank was constituted a trustee in respect of those securities. These securities yielded income and in the relevant assessment year the income came to Rs. 85,700 and the Income-tax Authorities attempted to tax the assessee company in respect of this income under Section 12, Income-tax Act.The question that arises is whet...
Bhogilal Laherchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City 1, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom411; (1956)58BOMLR57; ILR1956Bom93
Chagla, C.J. 1. An interesting Question arises on this reference as to the liability of the father to pay tax on the income of his minor son. The question might have presented some difficulty but for the fact that the recent decision of the Supreme Court really makes it almost impossible to come to any other conclusion than the one to which we have arrived. 2. The facts are that one Bhogilal had three sons Pratap, Arvind and Mahesh. Bhogilal started a partnership with his three sons under a deed of partnership dated 14-4-1943. At that date Pratap was a major and Arvind & Mahesh were minors and therefore Arvind and Mahesh were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Arvind attained majority on 22-8-1950. He elected to continue to remain a partner of this firm and a fresh partnership deed was executed between Bhogilal the father and Pratap, Arvind and Mahesh on 28-8-1950. Arvind died on, 31-8-1950, The year of account of Bhogilal who is the assessee as an individual before us is Sam...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmeda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom438; (1956)58BOMLR54; ILR1956Bom48
ORDER1. The assessee is an unregistered firm and it was dissolved on 15-6-1944. Receivers were appointed to sell the partnership assets and they sold them on 10-3-1947. The partnership assets realised a gain of RS. 30,447/-, and the Income-tax Department, conten-ded that this sale had resulted in a 'capital gain' within the meaning of Section 12-B and that the firm was liable to be assessed to tax on this capital gain. The contention of the assesses was that its case fell within the third proviso to Section 12B. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and the matter comes before us on this reference. 2. The third proviso would only apply if the transfer is made on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons, and the transfer is in the nature of distribution of capital assets. It is difficult to accept the contention that when the receivers sold the partnership assets on 10-3-1947, they were distributing capital assets to the partner on the dissolution of the partners...
Misrilal Jalamchand and anr. Vs. Sobhachand Jalamchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom569
1. The plaintiffs who are husband and wife, respectively, filed Special Suit No. 6 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Nasik, for a decree for partition and separate possession of their one half share in certain properties. During the pendency of the suit it appears the parties arrived at a compromise and the terms of the compromise were reduced to writing.Defendant 3 who was a minor was represented by defendant 1 his father; and the Court authorised defendant 1 to enter upon and sign the compromise terms on behalf of defendant 3. It appears that the pleader who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs regarded the terms of the compromise as unfavourable to the plaintiff and he filed purchis Ex.60 stating that no compromise terms were arrived at between the parties.It may be mentioned that the compromise terms were settled on 15-7-1953. After the purshis Ex. 60 was filed by the pleader for the plaintiffs the suit stood adjourned for hearing to 22-7-1953. On 16-7-195...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmeda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR987(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The very short question that arises for our decision on this reference is : what was the income of the assessee company in respect of the managing agency commission earned by it for managing the managed company, the Girdhardas Harivallavdas Mills The assessees were appointed the managing agents under an agreement dated the September 7, 1940, and they were entitled to a commission of 3.5% on the sale proceeds of the mills. On the basis the commission of the managing agents came to Rs. 2,05,575-3-0 for the calendar year 1951 which is the year of account. In fact the assessee company only received Rs. 1,05,575-3-0 under circumstances which we will presently narrate, and the question that arose before the Tribunal was whether the assessee company was liable to pay tax on the sum of Rs. 2,05,575-3-0 which was the amount on the basis 3 1/2% or on Rs. 1,05,575-3-0 which the actual amount received by the assessee company, and the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee company t...
Shanta Vs. Khalas Ramjibhai Chhotalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom144
1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the District Court of Ahraed-dabad refusing to set aside the decree passed ex parte in Divorce Suit No. 16 of 1952. The plain-tiff Ramjibhai Chhotalal filed the suit in the Court of the District Judge at Ahmedabad for a decree for divorce against his wife Bai Shanta.The summons of the suit was sent to the defendant Bai Shanta by registered post. The packet containing the summons was returned im-served with the endorsement of the postal peon stating that it was refused when tendered. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that the defendant had come to know that the suit ha.d been filed and with a view to protract the proceedings the defendant had deliberately refused to accept the summons.The learned District Judge, it appears, accepted the affidavit of the plaintiff and treated the summons as properly served upon the defendant. Thereafter a decree ex parte was passed against the defendant for divorce on 14-7-1852.2. O...
Sonabai Vs. Gotiram Nathu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Bom160
1. The plaintiff claiming to be a purchaser of the suit properties from one Shivnath -- daughter's son of one Bhika -- filed suit No. 59 of 1951 in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ahmednagar, against the defendants who were respectively purchasers of the same property from the widow of Bhika.The plaintiff claimed that Bhika who died on 7-12-1934 had made a will whereby he had devised the suit properties in favour of Shivnath, and Shivnath had become the owner of those properties and that he claimed a title derived from Shivnath. The suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that Bhika had not made a will.2. Before the learned trial Judge evidence was sought to be led to prove the will dated 7-12-1934. The learned trial Judge held that execution of the will was not proved according to the requirements of Section 63, Succession Act and therefore Shivnath could not be deemed to have acquired title to the property of Bhika under the will. On that vi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »