Mumbai Court February 1957 Judgments
Ramanlal Prabhudas Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR924(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Ramanlal Shah and Manilal Lalji carried on business in the assessment year 1953-54 in the name Rajnikant & Co. The firm made profits of Rs. 37,253 in speculative business. The firm is a registered firm and under the partnership agreement each partner was entitled to 8 annas share in those speculative profits, with the result that a sum of Rs. 18,000 of the speculative profits was allocated to the share of Ramanlal Shah, on of the partners. Now, Ramanlal Shah carried on speculative business on his own and in that business he suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 5,894. He sought to set off this loss against his share of speculative profits in the sum of Rs. 18,000. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, the Appellate Assistant commissioner admitted it, and the Tribunal has taken the same view as the Income-tax Officer.2. Now, the view taken by the Tribunal is that the income from speculative profits which came to the share of Ramanlal was income which fell under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mohammad Haniff Vs. Vinayak Wamanrao Thakare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR727
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff's from an order of the Additional District Judge, Wardha, refusing to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree for sale passed in a mortgage suit on November 9, 1943.2. The facts are simple and are as follows : On the foot of a mortgage executed by one Smt. Chandrabhagabai on October 21, 1926, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for the recovery of the money due thereon. She died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives who are respondents Nos. 1-3 to the appeal were brought on record in her place. Various contentions were raised by them but they were overruled and a preliminary decree for sale was passed by the Court in favour of the appellants. The respondents preferred an appeal from thatdecree which was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur on December 26, 1950. It may be mentioned that the preliminary decree for sale was passed by the Additional District Judge on November 9, 1943. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadu Ukarda Dhangar Vs. Tulsabai Namdeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1117
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 3 to 7 to a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration that certain alienations made by their father Baliram, defendant No. 1, in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 19 were not binding on their shares and for partition and possession of their (plaintiffs') shares in the property in suit. Plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by his legal representatives, respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(c).2. The facts relevant, for the purpose of this appeal and which are not disputed before us are as follows: At the partition between defendant No. 1 and his brother, which was effected in the year 1926, about 100 acres of land, some houses and some movable property fell to the share of defendant No. 1. Between the years 1930-1940 he alienated the bulk of the property. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 was given to vices and the alienations, which were challenged by them in the suit out of which this a...
Tag this Judgment!Lilaram Thawerdas, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR753(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A rather unusual and difficult question arises for our determination on this reference. The assessee was resident of Pakistan up to 1st January, 1948, and he carried on business there and he earned income by certain business which he had in Africa. We are now concerned with the assessment year 1946-47. With regard to this income which had accrued in Africa he was assessed by the Income-tax Officer in Pakistan on the 5th of September, 1950. On the 8th February, 1954, a notice was issued to the assessee under section 34 (1) (a) by the Income-tax Officer, Bombay. The notice was with regard to the identical amount, namely Rs. 1,05,173, with regard to which he had been assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Karachi. The Taxing Department gave him relief under the provisions of the order giving relief for double taxation as between India and Pakistan; but the contention of the assessee was that he was not liable to be taxed at all in India and that his only liability was to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North Vs. Shantilal Vrajlal and Cha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR903(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of an order of the Income-tax Officer, which was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the application of the assessee for the registration of a firm. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner has come of this reference. 2. The assessment year of the firm is 1950-51 and the relevant year of account is S. Y. 2005 which corresponds to the period 2nd November, 1948, to 21st October, 1949. The application for registration was made on the 18th August, 1951, and that application was supported by a partnership agreement dated 26th October, 1950. In that partnership deed four partners were shown, viz., Messrs. Chandulal Dayalal & Co., Messrs. Shantilal Vrajlal & Co., Patel Nanalal, and Desai Keshavlal, and the share of each of these partners was shown as 4 annas. The partnership deed also recited that this partnership was continued in S. Y. 2006 but the share of the partners w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Court Receiver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR885(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A suit for the dissolution of a partnership was filed on the 28th of March, 1947, and in that suit a consent decree was passed on the 24th September, 1947. Under the consent decree joint receivers were appointed to wind up the affairs of the firm and on the 11th August, 1950, the court receiver stepped into the shoes of the joint receivers and he has been assessed to tax in respect of the income of the partnership for the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53. 2. Now the first question that has been submitted to us is : 'Whether in the circumstances of the case section 41 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act applied ?' It is difficult to understand how this question arises on the facts before us. The Department itself invoked section 41 (1) and proceeded to tax the receiver under the provisions of that section. What Mr. Joshi wants to argue before us is that, inasmuch as the receiver carried on business under the terms of the consent decree, he should have...
Tag this Judgment!Karamsey Govindji, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR953(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised on this reference relates to a debt written off by the assessee on the 12th of November, 1947, and the debt came to be written off under the following circumstances. The assessee advanced Rs. 10,000 to one B. A. Joshi, a film producer, on the 31st of December, 1945. In respect of this loan one G. N. Joshi was a guarantor. Thereafter the assessee advanced a further sum of Rs. 70,000 by driblets, but these loans were not guaranteed and they were advanced on demand promissory notes. The last of these advances was made on the 6th of June, 1946; and, as already pointed out, the debt was written off on the 12th of November, 1947, which is the last date of the year of account of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1948-49. The Department took the view that the debt had not become irrecoverable in Samvat year 2003, which is the year of account and the Tribunal agreed with the view of the Department. 2. The question which we have to consider is whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshrao Bapurao Vs. Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom141; (1957)59BOMLR1032; ILR1957Bom642
Tambe, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal.2. The following genealogical tree will be helpful in understanding the questions involved in this case: GOVINDRAO = window, Sakhu Bhagirthibai (d.on 10-3-24) (d.on 3-9-34) | ---------------------------------------------- | | Bapurao= window Tulsi Anusaya = husband, Bapurao | (d. on 3-9-44) (Deft. 1) Ganeshrao (Plff.) | (Adopted by Tulshi to her ----------------------- husband Bapurao on 7-7-46) | | Bungi Bibi (Deft 2) (Deft. 3)3. Facts which are not in dispute in brief are. Bapurao predeceased Govindrao. Govind-rao died on 10-3-1924 leaving behind his widow Sakhu, daughter Anusaya and agricultural fields NOS. 4.20/2. 47/2, 69/1, 19 and 10, situated at village Gangaon, and field No. 20/1, situated at village Sakur. He also left behind certain house properties which are now in possession of the 4th and 5th and 6th defendants but we are not concerned therewith in this appeal. On the death of Govindrao, his widow Sakhu succeeded to the said property....
Tag this Judgment!Girdharilal Jiwanlal Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR710; [1957]8STC732(Bom)
ORDER1. The order in this petition shall also govern the decision of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 130 and 131 of 1956, all by the same petitioner. They are directed against the orders of the respondents, the Sales Tax Officer, Akola, and the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur. 2. Three cases for three different periods, viz., from 22nd October, 1949, to 9th November, 1950, from 10th November, 1950, to 30th October, 1951, and for 1951-52, were commenced against the petitioner in order to assess him to sales tax. The three cases were disposed of by the first respondent (the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax) by a common order passed in Sales Tax Appeal No. 5060/I.A. 6, impugned in Miscellaneous Petition No. 131 of 1956. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was an occupant of 542 acres and 32 gunthas of land in eight villages in Akot tahsil of Akola District. In 440.77 acres of land he had sown and raised crops of cotton, groundnuts and grain. After meeting his perso...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Shantilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom170; (1957)59BOMLR718; ILR1957Bom623
Mudholkab, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants 1 to 5 to a suit for possession of two houses situate at Nagpur and for mesne profits.2. The facts which are no longer in dispute arc as follows: On the foot of a mortgage deed executed by the defendant No. 1, Mahadeo, his brother Narayan, now deceased and his father Budhaji also now deceased, the plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for sale of two houses belonging to them on 31-10-1933. He obtained a final decree for sale on 18-9-1939. It would appear that subsequent to the passing of the final decree but previous to the execution of the decree, Budhaji as well as Narayan died. Narayan left behind him two widows. Yamuna, defendant No. 4, and Parwati, defendant No. 6, and two sons Babusingh, defendant No. 2, and Harisingh, defendant No. 3, as his personal heirs. It is not clear as to the exact date on which Budhaji died, but it would appear that after his death his name was struck off apparently on the ground that his interest dev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »