Mumbai Court August 1956 Judgments
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. M.M. Dalvi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC58(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. Mousell and Company Ltd., which has been described as the transferor company, was assessed to sales tax for the period from the 1st of October, 1946, to the 31st October, 1952, on the 18th of March, 1954. This company transferred a part of its business to Sanghi Motors (Bombay) Ltd. on the 4th of December, 1953, and transferred the rest of its business to the petitioners on the 4th of May, 1954. The Taxing Authority sent a notice of demand upon the petitioners claiming from them the amount to which the transferor company had been assessed on the ground that as a transferee company it was liable to pay the tax which the transferor company was liable to pay. The petitioners thereupon came here under the Constitution for a writ contending that the demand for tax made by the Taxing Authority was not justified by law. 2. Now, it appears that after the petition was filed, which was on the 18th of April, 1956, the notices originally served by the Taxing Authority upon the peti...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bombay Vs. Nagraj Walchand Ranka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR1037
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These thirteen appeals have been preferred by the State against the orders of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4th Court, Poona, acquitting the respondent in each case of the offence charged under Section 25(3) read with Section 34 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act. It appears that the respondent was charged in these cases with having committed an offence also under Section 18 of the Money-lenders Act and he has been acquitted of the said charge in some of these eases and convicted in others. In the present appeals,however, we are not concerned with the said orders of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent in respect of the said offence under Section 18. The orders of acquittal which are challenged in these appeals are in respect of an offence punishable under Section 25(5) read with Section 34 of the Act and they all raise one common question of law. That question relates to the construction of the material words used in Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhardas and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR82(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company went into liquidation on the 23rd August, 1952. Its accounting year ended on the 30th September, 1952, and we are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. Prior to liquidation the profits made by the company were Rs. 98,000. The accumulated profits of the company for six years prior to its previous year were Rs. 50,500, and the Income-tax Officer in computing its profits also included a sum of Rs. 21,142 which was a notional profit under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. 2. Now, the liquidator distributed Rs. 15,00,000 to the shareholders on the 9th September, 1952, and Rs. 2,25,000 on the 25th September, 1952, and the question that arose was whether in making this distribution he had distributed Rs. 98,000 as part of the dividend of the company which was liable to tax as dividend. There was no dispute as to the sum of Rs. 50,500. It was conceded by the company that that amount fell within the definition of 'dividend' in section 2 (6A) (c). With ...
Tag this Judgment!ismailia GraIn Merchants Association Limited Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR433(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference is by an assessee whose case had come up before us in I. T. Reference No. 47 of 1954. The facts are identical and in that reference we held that the assessee was liable to pay tax under section 12. 2. Now, this reference challenges an order of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the identical income earned by the assessee is liable to tax under section 10 (6). As pointed out in the earlier judgment, the assessee Association receives subscriptions from its members who have given ration shops and this subscription is utilised by the Association for distributing 75 per cent. of this income to those of its members who are not so fortunate as to be given ration shops. The remaining 25 per cent. is utilised towards office expenses and charity and on those facts we held that the net income of the Association was liable to tax under section 12. In this reference the Tribunal has taken the view that the income is liable to tax under section 10 (6). Before se...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhardas and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom4; (1956)58BOMLR932; ILR1957Bom50
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company went into liquidation on 23-8-1952. Its accounting year ended on 30-9- 1952, and we are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. Prior to liquidation the profits made by the company were Rs. 98,000/-. The accumulated profits of the company for six years prior to its previous year were Rs. 50,000/-, and the Income-tax Officer in computing its profits also included a sum of Rs. 21.142/- which was a notional profit under Section 23A. Income-tax Act.2. Now, the liquidator distributed Rs. 15,000,00/- to the share-holders on 9-9-1952 and Rs. 2,25,000/- on 25-9-1852, and the question that arose was whether In making this distribution he had distributed Rs. 98,000/- as part of the dividend of the company which was liable to tax as dividend. There was no dispute as to the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.It was conceded by the company that that -amount fell within the definition of 'dividend' in Section 2 (6A) (c). With regard to the notional dividend of Rs. 21,142/- t...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom756; (1956)58BOMLR936; ILR1957Bom43
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference raises the question with regard to the liability of the assessee company to pay tax on interest received by it in respect of advance payment of tax. Under Section 18A(6) the assessee company received interest in the sum of Rs. 7,519/- in respect of advance payment of tax. Under Section 18-A the assessee company which is under a statutory obligation to make this advance payment receives interest which is calculated at the rate of interest mentioned in Sub-section (5) from the date of payment till the date of assessment, and this amount aggregated to Rs. 7,519/-. There is also provision under Sub-sections (6) and (7) for payment of interest by the assessee if under Sub-section (6) it fails to pay advance tax which is less than 80 per cent of the tax which it is ultimately assessed to pay, and if under Sub-section (7) it fails to pay the tax in proportion to the instalments in which the tax is payable, and a liability arose upon the assessee company to pay i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR72(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee firm carries on business as commission agents and as such commission agents they had a business connection with one Haji who was a businessman carrying on business at Port Sudan. The Income-tax Department treated the assessee as the agent of this non-resident principal and they assessed him to tax under section 42 (1) of the Income-tax Act. As the result of the assessment made by the Department the assessee paid on behalf of this non-resident principal a sum of Rs. 3,78,491. The assessee failed to recover this amount from the non-resident principal, and in the year of account he contended that this debt was irrecoverable and claimed it as a bad debt. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to this deduction and the Commissioner has come on this reference. 2. It is admitted that if this was a debt which could be claimed under section 10 (2) (xi) it became irrecoverable in the year of account and therefore a bad debt which could be claimed in that yea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR145(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a limited company and it make up its accounts at the end of December every year. In the statement of account for the year ended 31st December, 1948, the profit for that year was shown at Rs. 28,56,977-14-2. To this was added a sum of Rs. 37,948-11-9 being the profit brought forward from the last year. The directors made the fallowing appropriation of these profits. They allocated a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 to depreciation fund, Rs. 12,50,000 towards provision for income-tax, corporation tax and business profits tax, Rs. 11,08,000 to reserve fund, and Rs. 1,50,000 to dividend reserve fund. This left a balance of Rs. 1,61,946 and this amount they recommended should be expended in payment of dividend, leaving a balance of Rs. 89,134 which they recommended should be carried forward to next year's account. The directors made their report on 27th April, 1949. A general meeting of the shareholder was held on the 27th June, 1949, and they accepted the report and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadavji Narshidas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR1(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A very short question arises on this reference, whether an assessment made on the assessee as an agent of a nonresident principal was bad in law on the ground that no notice under section 43 of the Income-tax Act was served upon him. The assessee submitted a return as the agent of the non-resident principal. It also appears that a notice under section 22(2) was directed to be issued by the Income-tax Officer, but the contention of the assessee was that notice was not served upon him. and the assessee before the Income-tax Officer did not take up any contention with regard to the failure to serve upon him a notice under section 43. It was only in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that this contention was raised for the first time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that no notice under section 22(2) was served on the appellant, but he rejected the contention of the assessee that by reason of the failure to serve a notice under section 43 the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aryodaya Ginning and Manufacturing Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom26; (1956)58BOMLR924; ILR1957Bom38
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited company and it makes up its accounts at the end of December every year. In the statement of account for the year ended 31-12-1948 the profit for that year was shown at Rs. 28,56, 997-14-2. To this was added a sum of Rs. 37, 948-11-9 being the profit brought forward from the last year.The Directors made the following appropriations of these profits. They allocated a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to depreciation fund, Rs. 12,50,000/- towards provision for income-tax, corporation tax and business profits tax, Rs. 11,08,000/- to reserve fund, and Rs. 1,50,000/- to dividend reserve fund. This left a balance of Rs. 1,61,946/- and this amount they recommended should be expended in payment of dividend leaving a balance of Rs. 89,134/- which they recommended should be carried forward to next year's account. The Directors made their report on 27-4-1949.A general meeting of the shareholders was held on 27-6-1949 and they accepted the report and the recommendations...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »