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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. RamnaraIn Sons Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR17(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. On the 1st of October, 1946, the assessee company acquired the managing agency of the Dawn Mills Co., Ltd. Prior to this, Messrs. Sassoon J. David and Co. Ltd. were the managing agents. Part of the agreement to transfer the managing agency was that the assessee company had to purchase from Messrs. Sassoon J. David and Co. Ltd., 2,507 shares of the mills for a total consideration of Rs. 50,00,000. The market price of these shares at the relevant date was Rs. 1,610 per share. Fifteen hundred and seven of these shares were transferred to the company at the price of Rs. 2,321-8-0 and the balance of 1,000 were transferred to the directors at Rs. 1,500 per share. Two months after this transaction, the assessee company sold 400 shares, and the result of this transaction was that they suffered a loss of Rs. 1,78,438. This loss was claimed by the company as a revenue loss and this claim was allowed by the Tribunal and the Commissioner has come on this reference. 2. Now, in the fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. A.D. Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR284(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1947-48 on the 6th March, 1953. He was a dealer in shares and his income from that business was assed at Rs. 1,11,271. His contention was that this income should be reduced in view of certain directions given by the Tribunal in an earlier assessment and those directions were concerned with the valuation of the shares. The income-tax Officer accepted that contention of the assessed and in the final assessment order passed by him he directed that the sum of Rs. 1,11,271 was subject to adjustment. Therefore it is clear that in the final assessment what the Income-tax Officer had accepted as the income of the assessee was not Rs. 1,11,271, but Rs. 1,11,271 subject to adjustment. It will also be realised that the principle on which the adjustment was to be made was also accepted. So, the only question was to work out the figures in conformity with that principle.2. Now, on the 28th March, 1952, a notice was issued again...
Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR136(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a life insurance company and according to the actuarial valuation as at 31st December, 1943, there was a deficit of Rs. 3,56,054. The actuarial valuation as at 31st December, 1946, showed a surplus of Rs. 37,429, and the question that arose was the proper mode of ascertaining the profits or income of this company in accordance with the Schedule to the Income-tax Act. 2. Now, there is no dispute with regard to the application of rule 2. For that purpose the surplus for the inter-valuation period has to be assessed at Rs. 3,93,483 comprising the actuarial valuation of Rs. 37,429 and the deficiency as disclosed by the actuarial valuation as at 31st December, 1943. The question that arise on this reference is ads to the application of rule 3 and rule 3 (a) provides. 'In computing the surplus for the purpose of rule 2, one-half of the amounts paid to or reserved for or expended on behalf of policy-holders shall be allowed as a deduction.' 3. The company carri...
The Commonwealth Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Bom736; (1956)58BOMLR882; ILR1957Bom19
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a life insurance company and according to the actuarial valuation as at 31-12-1943 there was a deficit of Rs. 3,56,054/-. The ac-tuarial valuation as at 31-12-1946 showed a surplus of Rs. 37,429/-, and the question that arose was the proper mode of ascertaining the profits or Income of this company in 'accordance with the Schedule to the Income-tax Act.2. Now, there is no dispute with regard to the application of R. 2. For that purpose the surplus for the inter-valuation period has to be assessed at Rs. 3,93,483/- comprising the actuarial valuation of Rs. 37,429/- and the deficiency as disclosed by the actuarial valuation as at 31-12-1943. The question that arises on this reference is as to the application of Rule 3 and Rule 3(a) provides:'In computing the surplus for the purpose of R. 2, one-half of the amounts paid to or reserved for or expended on behalf of policy holders shall be allowed as a deduction'.The company carried forward a sum of Rs. 34,622...
Messrs. Jekisondas Tribhuvandas, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR376(Bom)
Judgment of the Court was delivered byCHAGHA, C.J. - The Tribunal has submitted a statement of the case as required by us under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, and the statement disclosed the following facts. The assessee suffered losses in bullion in the year of account. He dealt in this commodity both on his own account and as a broker for his constituents and he claimed that he had acted as a broker for nine constituents, that these constituents had not discharged their liability. that he had paid on the Bullion Exchange the amounts due by these persons had become irrecoverable, and therefore he claimed the amounts as bad debts. The two questions which we asked the Tribunal to refer were :'(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 1,90,841 represented debts, and, if so, they became bad or doubtful debts in the year of account ?(2) In the alternative, whether the said sum of Rs. 1,90,841 was an allowable deduction as a loss under section 10 (2) (XV) of the Indian Income-tax Act or as a loss i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›