Mumbai Court August 1956 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.
Jadavji Narshidas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom23; (1956)58BOMLR928; ILR1957Bom33
Chagla, C.J.1. A very short question arises on this reference whether aa assessment made on the assesses as an agent of a non-resident principal was bad in taw on the ground that no notice under Section 43, 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 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...
National Syndicate, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom731; (1956)58BOMLR920; ILR1957Bom29; [1957]31ITR396(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee firm purchased a tailoring business as a going concern on 11-1-1945 and from that date it carried on the business of making garments for Government departments. The Income-tax Department held that this business was continued till 28-8-1945 and thereafter the firm ceased to carry on business- The contention of the assessee was that this business was continued till 28-2-1946, and the first question that arises on this reference is with regard to the date when the business ceased to be carried on by the assessee firm.2. The first question really is a question of fact and if there is evidence to justify the finding then no further question can arise. In the statement of the case the Tribunal in paras 8 and 9 has set out various circumstances which support the finding that the business came to an end on 28-8-1945. It is unnecessary to recapitulate these circumstances, but it cannot be disputed that these circumstances do and can support the finding arrived at by...
Gustad Dinshaw Irani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR92(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a partner in several firms doing restaurant business in Bombay and on the 6th August, 1945, he applied for a plot of land in the Worli Scheme of the Bombay Municipality. His application was granted and under the terms of the grant the assessee had to construct a building on the plot at a cost of not less then Rs. 75,000. It was also a term of the grant that he had to pay an annual rent of Rs. 3,388 in respect of this plot. When the building was constructed the Municipal Corporation was to give him a lease for 999 years. On the 30th October, 1950, the assessee assigned his right under the grant for a consideration of Rs. 32,011. To bring about this transaction he had availed himself of the services of a broker and that broker was paid commission in the sum of Rs. 1,770. Two contentions arose for the consideration of the Appellate Tribunal. One was that the sum of Rs. 32,011 was not an assessable profit in the hands of the assessee, and the second contenti...
Govindji Vithaldas and Co. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom26; (1957)59BOMLR129; ILR1957Bom147
M.C. Chagla, J.1. These are 31 petitions challenging the refusal by the Municipal Commissioner of the Ahmedabad Municipality to issue licenses to them for carrying on timber business in a certain locality in Ahmedabad. The point involved in all these petitions in identical and therefore it will be sufficient if we deal with the facts of the first petition, Special Civil Application No. 1477 of 1956, and decide the point in that petition.2. Now, this petitioner has been doing timber business for several years in a locality which is known as City Wall locality and a license was given to him to carry on this business for several years. When he applied for a license for the year 1951-52 the license was refused on the ground that in the opinion of the Fire Superintendent the Municipal law was not observed and the margin of five feet around the premises was not kept as required by law. Notwithstanding the refusal of the license the petitioner carried on his business and when he applied for a...
State Vs. Babulal Gaurishanker Misar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom10; (1956)58BOMLR1021; 1957CriLJ48; ILR1957Bom80
Dixit, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused upon a complaint filed against them for an offeuce punishable under Section 186, Penal Code. The facts leading upto the prosecution of the accused may he shortly stated.2. There is, in the village Chandor of the Chandor Taluka of the Nasik District, a field bearing survey No. 131 pot Ilissa No. 1 admeasuring 40 acres and 19 gunthas (pot kharab 34 gunthas) and assessed at Rs. 31-1-0. According to the present record, the land is survey No. 131 pot hissa No. 1A admeasuring 27 acres and 26 gunthas (pot kharab 28 gunthas) and assessed at Rs. 21-4-0. This land originally belonged to accused 1 to 3 who sold it on 12-12-1936 to one Dhanji Damodar Sonje of Chandor for Rs. 2500.The property was subsequently given by Dhanji to accused 1 who passed a writing by way of a lease on 14-6-1939. As agreed to in the rent note, accused 1 did not give possession to Dhanji who filed a Civil Suit (No. 377 of 1943) against accused...
Dialdas Parmanand Vs. P.S. Talwalkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR955; [1956]7STC675(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition challenges the validity of Act VII of 1956 being an Act passed by Parliament. The petitioner carries on business of dealing in curios, novelty goods, piece goods etc. at Bombay and he is a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1953. For the period commencing from 1st April 1954 to 31st March 1955 the petitioner elected as and from the 23rd February 1955 to pay tax on his sales instead of tax on his purchases. In the course of assessment for this period he was taxed on his purchases from persons outside the State of Bombay from the 1st April 1954 to the 23rd February 1955 on the sum of Rs. 2,55,534-5-6. The petitioner's contention was that these purchases were not liable to tax under the Sales Tax Act as they were made in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.2. In order to understand the contentions of the parties, it is necessary in the first place to look at the provisions of the Constitution and to consider what are the powers of the Sta...
Ambu Rama Mhatre and anr. Vs. Bhau Halya Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom6; (1956)58BOMLR972; ILR1957Bom283
1. Bhau Halya Patil, whom I will hereafter ruler to as the 'first respondent', and four others filed Debt Adjustment Application No. 682 of 1947 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior 'Division, at Pen against four creditors for adjustment of their debts, alleging that they were agricultural debtors or agricultural labourers within the meaning of the B.A.D.K. Act,The applicants claimed that the transfer of lands S. No. 51 Pot Hissa Nos. 3 and 4, S. No. 90 Pot No. 1 and S. No. 155 Pot Nos. 2 and 3 under a sale deed executed on 12-10-1911, by Halya Patil, father of respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil and certain other persons, in favour of one Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman, for Rs. 1,137/4/- was in the nature of mortgage and the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman acquired the rights only of mortgagees. The application was resisted by the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman.The learned trial Judge held that the sale deed, dated 12-10-1911, in favour of Shaikh Husain Sileman...
Haridas Mafatlal Gagalbhai Vs. Vijayalakshmi Navinchandra Mafatlal Gag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom721
1. This suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his next friend during the minority of the plaintiff on 15-9-1951 for a partition of the estate of Mufatlal Gagalbhai on the ground that the plaintiff was the illegitimate son of the said Mafatlal by defendant 7 Sushilabai. It is alleged that Mafatlal was a Shudra by caste and was a kadwa Patidar and that the mother the plaintiff, defendant 7 is also a Shudra. The deceased Mafatlal died as far back as 19-7-1944.It is said that the deceased was introduced to Sushilabai sometime in 1925 who was at that time a widow, and that from the year 1927 for a continuous period of 17 years Sushilabai was in Mafat-fal's continuous and exclusive keeping as a permanent concubine. Defendant 8 is a daughter of the said Mafatlal by Sushilabai. It is alleged further that the plaintiff was born to Sushilabai in 1931 and the daughter was born in 1939.It is contended that the plaintiff as the illegitimate son of the deceased is entitled to a share out of t...
The Khatau Makanji Spg. and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom733; (1956)58BOMLR885; ILR1957Bom22; [1956]30ITR841(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather important question arises on this reference with regard to the proper interpretation of the provisions contained in respect of additional Income-tax levied by the Indian Finance Act.2. The year of assessment of the assessee company i3 1953-54 and the previous year ends on 30-6-1952, and the total income of the company was Rs. 5,26,681/-, and the dividends declared by this company in that year were Rs. 4,78,950/-. There-fore they exceeded by about Rs. 1,87,691/- the ceiling of dividend fixed by the Legislature, viz. 9 annas in the rupee, and the taxing authority levied a tax at the rate of 5 annas on this amount.The levy was challenged by the assessee on various grounds and the question that has come up before us is whether Parliament has effectively made this levy looking to the provisions contained in the Act. This provision in the Finance Act came up for our consideration in two decisions. The first was in 'Elphinstone Spg. & Weaving Mills v. Commr. of Income...
Akbar Manufacturing and Press Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR99(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by us on the 25th of February, 1955, the Tribunal has submitted a supplementary statement of the case bearing on the question, 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee company was carrying on business in the accounting year 1948-49 was justified ?' The facts are stated in that judgment and they need not be repeated here. 2. Now, the reference, as far as it was made to call for a supplementary statement, was rendered necessary because the only circumstance that appeared on the record which had any bearing on the finding of fact by the Tribunal that the assessee company was carrying on the business, was that it had let out the whole of its undertaking during the year of account and the Supreme Court had held in Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, that 'the mere fact that a company lets out the whole of its undertaking does not necessarily lead to the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »