Mumbai Court September 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.
Machinery Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom14; (1956)58BOMLR966; ILR1957Bom106
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee company was incorporated on 15-5-1946. After incorporation the business that the assessee company did was to sell in India certain textile spinning machinery made by H. and B. American Machine Co., of United States of America. There was also an arrangement with this American company by which the assessee company was to manufacture these machines in India and sell them and for this purpose the assessee company set up a factory.The building of the factory Was completed before 31-3-1950, the major portion of the plant and machinery was also installed in this factory but the actual production of textile machinery was not started till four or five months after 31-3-1950. We are concerned with the year of account of the asses-see company which ends on 31-3-1950 and for that year of account the assessee company claimed initial depreciation within the meaning of Section 10(2)(vi), Income tax Act.That depreciation was not allowed by the Taxing Department and the disa...
Subraya Vardappa Hegde Vs. Gopal Krishna Vishweshwar Shastri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: AIR1959Bom13; (1957)59BOMLR62
Bavdekar, J. 1. This is an application for revision arising from an application made by the applicant-landlord for possession of lands from the tenant Opponent No.1 on the ground that he had during a period of four years from 1949-50 to 1952-53 sub-let parcels out of the lands let to him to opponents No. 2, 3 and 4. That Opponent No. 1 had sub-let pieces of had to Opponents No.2, 3 and 4 is not in dispute. The principal contention which was taken on behalf of Opponent No.1 which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is that the landlord had failed to apply within a period of two years from the date when there was in the first instance sub-letting by Opponent No.1 in the year 1949-50. It was said that in the case the landlord wanted to apply for possession of the lands from Opponent No.1 on the ground that he had sub-let, he had under the provisions of Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and ?Agricultural Lands Act to make...
Mackey Brothers Vs. Jethanand Jessumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR1050
Bavdekar, J.1. These two applications for revision arise from two summary suits and may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as a certain common question of law is involved. The first suit is a suit upon a dishonoured cheque and the plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant the amount of the cheque after giving credit to him of an amount which the plaintiff said was due to him upon certain independent transactions. The defendant applied for leave to defend and the defences taken by him, which it is necessary to state for the purpose of the present application, are that the present suit could not be filed as a summary suit because the plaintiff's suit was not filed within the period of three years provided for filing such suits under Article 64A of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff wished to rely upon the provisions of Sections 19 and 14 of the Limitation Act in order to save limitation. He said that he had been prosecuting an application against the defendant under the...
State Vs. Gauri Kom Krishna Bhandari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom66; (1956)58BOMLR1046; 1957CriLJ362; ILR1957Bom98
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karwar, in Criminal Case No. 982 of 1955. Thirteen persons were tried by the Learned Magistrate for offences under Ss. 4 and 5 Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. The case for the Prosecution was as follows; Sub-Inspector R. N. Desai of Ankola police Station, haying received infer, mation that a house in the village of Avarsa belonging to the first accused Gauri kom Krishna Bhandari was being used as a common gaming house, applied on 23-8-1955 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karwar Division, for a warrant under Section 6, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a warrant on 25-8-1955 authorising Sub-Inspector Desai to enter House No. 548 Block No. 3, 107 of Avarsa village by night or by day with such assistance as may be required and to use, if necessary, reasonable force for that purpose, and to search every part of the house and to seize an...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Narsee Nagsee an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom1; (1956)58BOMLR950; ILR1957Bom91; [1957]31ITR164(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assesses company's assessment to income-tax for the assessment year 1949-50 which corresponds to the previous year S. Y. 2004 (13-11-1947 to 31-10-1948) was 'completed by the Income-tax Officer on 17-2-1953. On 12-1-1953 the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 11(1), Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, against the assessee company In respect of the chargeable accounting period. 13-11-1947 to 31-10-1948.The assessee company filed a return under protest. The protest was overruled by the Income-tax Officer and he completed the assessment. On, appeal by the assessee company, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment was invalid in view of Section 14(1), Business Profits Tax Act. The Income-tax Officer appealed to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal took the same view as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner of Income-tax has now come on this reference.2. Section 11(1) which deals with the issue of notice for ass...
Puranmal Radhakishan and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR294(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a dealer in shares and it appears that on the 29th March, 1948, it purchase 5,300 shares of the Edward Textiles Limited. The price it paid for these shares was Rs. 1,100 per share. It also on the same day purchased the manaing agency right of the Edward Textiles Limited. The assessment year is 1949 and the relevant previous year of the assessee ended on the 31st March, 1949. On that day the market value of these shares was Rs. 225 per share. In the year of account the assessee had dealt with some of these share and some shares had been given to it as bonus shares, and it claimed a loss in its business on the footing that it had purchased these share at Rs. 1,100 per share and the market value on the 31st March, 1949, was Rs. 225 per share. The Income-tax Officer held that market value on the 29th March, 1948, was only Rs. 715 and not Rs. 1,100 and that the assessee had paid Rs. 1,100 instead of Rs. 715 because it secured the additional advantage of gettin...
Baijnath Chaturbhuj and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR643(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. In 1938 the managing agency of the Gujarat Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. was held by the firm of Shantilal Bhagwandas & Co. and by an agreement dated 18th January, 1938, this firm agreed to assign the managing agency and 4,736 shares of the company to Peeramal Chaturbhuj for a consideration of Rs. 7,51,000. On the 7th September, 1946, Peeramal Girdharlal & Co. entered into an agreement with Messrs. Chaturam & Sons and either by this agreement Peeramal Girdharlal & Co. agreed to relinquish their managing agency rights and to get Messrs. Chaturam & Sons appointed the managing agents. The agreement also provided that the vendors shall sell 65,012 shares of the company to the purchasers at the price of Rs. 65 per share. Now, the assessee is a partner in Peeramal Girdharlal & Co. and the Taxing Department sought to assess him to tax in respect of capital gains for the assessment year 1948-49 and what was contended by the Department was that for the purpose of capital gains the sale ...
Laxminarayan Nandkishore Shravagi Vs. Keshardev Baijnath Narsaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)58BOMLR1041
Shah, J.1. The respondent is the owner of a building known as 'Keshar Bag', Quarry Road, Malad, District Thana. The petitioner is a tenant of room No. 3 in that building. The contractual rent of the premises occupied by the petitioner was Rs. 30 per month. It was agreed between the petitioner and the respondent that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 2 per month in addition to rent as electricity charges. In May 1951 the respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent due by the petitioner. The petitioner then applied for fixation pf standard rent and ultimately the standard rent was fixed By the Court at Rs. 18 per month. The suit for arrears of rent was, compromised on July 21, 1951, and the petitioner agreed to take a separate sub-meter for the electrical energy supplied to the premises in his occupation. It was provided in the compromise decree that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 10 per month as electricity charges till a sub-meter was taken by him. The petitioner was in default of payment ...
Keshavlal Premchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR7(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that we have to consider and decide in this reference lies in a very narrow compass, although it has given rise to a very interesting debate at the Bar. There was a loss of Rs. 19,723 in a speculative business carried on by the assessee in the year of account and the assessee's contention was that he was entitled to take this loss into account in arriving at the profits and gains of his business. The Taxing Department rejected that contention on the ground that by reason of the first proviso to section 24 (1) of the Income-tax Act the assessee was not entitled to take into consideration a speculative loss, and that contention has been upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee also had raised an issue before the Tribunal that this was not a speculative loss, but that issue has not been pressed before us by Mr. Palkhivala. 2. Now, section 24 (1) deals with set off of a loss in computing aggregate income and, as is now well settled, the scheme of that section is to ...
Keshavlal Premchand Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Bom20; (1956)58BOMLR945; ILR1957Bom56
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that we have to consider and decide in this reference lies in a very narrow compass,although it has given rise to a very interesting debate at the Bar. There was a loss of Rs. 19,723 in a speculative business carried on by the assesses in the year of account and the assessee's contention was that he was entitled to take this loss into account in arriving at the profits and gains of his business.The Taxing Department rejected that contention on the ground that by reason of the first proviso to Section 24(1), Income-tax Act the assessee was not entitled to take into consideration a speculative loss, and that contention has been upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee also had raised an issue before the Tribunal that this was not a speculative loss, but that issue has not been pressed before us by Mr. Palkhivala.2. Now Section 24(1) deals with set off of a loss in computing aggregate income and, as is now well settled, the scheme of that section is to entitle an a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›