Mumbai Court February 1957 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.
Motilal Manekchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom291; (1957)59BOMLR499; ILR1957Bom495
Chagla, C.J. 1. There was a Joint family consisting of Moti-' lal Manekchand and his son Maganlal. Motilal, Maganlal and Motilal's wife Bhagirathibai werf appointed managing agents of the Pratap Mills at-Amalner, and the lather and son were appointed managing agents of the New Pratap Mills at Dhulia. It is common ground that the managing agency belonged to the joint and undivided Hindu family. This Hindu family was partitioned on the 1st July 1948 and a document was drawn up on the 29th June 1949 to give effect to that partition. There are three Schedules to this deed of dissolution allocating joint family properties to the three parties who were entitled to equal shares on the partition of the joint Hindu family viz., the father Motilal, the son. Maganlal, and the wife or the mother Bhargirathibai. There was a provision with regard to the managing agency commission and the provision was that Motilal end Manganlal were entitled to equal shares in this managing agency commission of the ...
Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom39; (1957)59BOMLR496; ILR1957Bom393
Chagla, C. J.1. The assessee paid advance tax under Section 18-A and its assessment under Section 23 was completedon 30th of March 1948. The assessee appealed against the order of assessment and that order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner an 15th November 1951 and he directed the I.T.O. to make a fresh assessment. This fresh assessment was made on 25th of January 1954. The income-tax Officer allowed the assessee interest on the advance payment from the date of payment till 30th of March 1948. The contention of the assessee was that he was entitled to interest up to the 25tn of January 1054. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and hence the reference.2. Now under Section 18-A interest is allowable to the assessee from the date of payment to the date of the assessment made under Section 23; and the discussion before us has revolved round the proper meaning to be given to the expression 'the date of the assessment.' Prima facie it may appear that the date of ...
Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR698(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee paid advance tax under section 18A and its assessment under section 23 was completed on the 30th March, 1948. The assessee appealed against the order of assessment and that order was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 15th November, 1951, and he directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. This fresh assessment was made on the 25th of January, 1954. The Income-tax Officer allowed the assessee interest on the advance payment from the date of payment till the 30th of March, 1948. The contention of the assessee was that he was entitled to interest upto the 25th of January, 1954. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal and hence the reference. 2. Now under section 18A interest is allowable to the assessee from the date of payment to the date of the assessment made under section 23; and the discussion before us has revolved round the proper meaning to be given to the expression 'the date of the assessment.' Prima facie it...
Soho House (Agents to S. and D. Rivet Co., Leicester) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR727(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee were appointed agents of S. & D. Rivet Co. by an agreement dated 3rd March, 1952, and under this agreement the principal company was to pay to the assessees a commission of 5 per cent. calculated on the net amount of case received by the company in payment of all orders accepted by the company and delivered to the agency territory. It is not disputed that the agency territory comprised India, Burma and Ceylon. The Income-tax Department held the assessees to be the statutory agents of the principal company, and in respect of the sales of the company affected in India they allocated a portion of the profits as arising here, brought those profits to tax, and called upon the statutory agents to pay the tax, and it is with regard to this claim of the Department that three questions arise on this reference. 2. The first question is : Whether there was material on the record on the basis of which the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that the non-resident ...
East India Chamber of Commerce Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR791(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This reference is concerned with certain lagas recovered by the East India Chamber of Commerce Ltd., Bombay, which the assessee before us. Lagas are fixed at certain rates for every transaction of purchase done under the bye-laws of the Chamber of Commerce by a member on account of his client, and the various commodities in respect of which lagas could be charged are set our. It will be noticed that the lagas are only payable by members when they are doing business on behalf of a non-member. No laga is payable by a member when he does business on his own behalf. It will also further be noticed that lagas are not charged in respect of various commodities which come within the ambit of this Chamber of Commerce. They are restricted to only four commodities mentioned in the bye-laws. 2. The first question that has to be considered is whether tax is payable under section 10 (6), and in order to attract tax under that subsection it is necessary that we must have an associatio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fulabhai Khodabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom41; (1957)59BOMLR440; ILR1957Bom387
Chagla, C.J.1. On a very few and short facts a very interesting question arises for our decision on this reference. The assessee went to East Africa in 1931. He had his lather and brothers living in Bombay in the Kaira District. The father was possessed of immoveable properties and in 1942 he made a gift of four of his houses to each one of his four sons including, the assessee; and the evidence on the record shows that, as the lather had no house left to stay in and as there was no likelihood of the assessee coming to India as he had his business in Africa to look after, he permitted the father to continue to stay in the house which, had been gifted to him. The assessee's wife-came to India with her four children on 17th of April 1946 and she lived in this house which was gifted to her husband and in which her father-in-law was staying. She lived in India, up to 14th of February 1947 and in the mean-while one of her sons got married on 23rd of May 1946. The assessee himself came to In...
Rowji Sojpal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR721(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is one of those cases which goes to show that the Legislature in enacting a taxing statute does not, possibly cannot, take into consideration all eventualities and all contingencies. The assessee was joint with his brother prior to 1932. On the 19th April, 1932, there was partition and the property in question came to his share on that partition. At the date of the partition the assessee had sons and therefore on the partition taking place the property became joint family property an between the assess and his sons. There was a partition between the assessee and his sons on the 9th June, 1944, and on that partition again the property came to the share of the assessee. On the 22nd of August, 1947, the assessee sold the property and made admittedly a capital gain of Rs. 97,251. The Department seeks to bring this capital gain to tax. 2. It is not disputed by the assessee that he is liable to pay the tax, unless his case falls within the second proviso to sub-section (1...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Etc. Vs. Fulabhai Khodabhai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR771(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. On a very few and short facts a very interesting question arises for our decision on this reference. The assessee went to East Africa in 1931. He had his father and brothers living in Bombay in the Kaira District. The father was possessed of immovable properties and in 1942, he made a gift of four of his houses to each one of his four sons including the assessee; and the evidence on the record shows that, as the father had no house left to stay in a and as there was no likelihood of the assessee coming to India as he had his business in Africa to look after, he permitted the father to continue to stay in the house which was gifted to her husband and in which her father-in-law was staying. She lived in India up to the 14th February, 1947, and in the meanwhile one of her sons got married on the 23rd of May, 1946. The assessee himself came to India on the 3rd of September, 1946, and stayed in this house up to the 31st December, 1946. On these facts the Taxing Department co...
Jagannath Vinayak Kale Vs. M.i. Ahmadi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR389; (1958)IILLJ50Bom
K.T. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the Mazagaon Dock, Ltd., respondent 3 herein. The petitioner is a member of the Dockyard Labour Union. Respondent 1 to the petition is Sri M. I Ahmadi, who has acted as an industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947. Respondent 2 is the State of Bombay. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or a direction or order and/or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution against respondent 1 calling for the record of the proceedings of this reference in (I.T.) No. 126 of 1954 and quashing and setting aside the award, dated September 20, 1956, made by respondent 1 in so far as it related to the reference (I.T.) No. 126 of 1954. He has further prayed for a writ of prohibition against respondent 1 or a writ in the nature of prohibition or an order or direction and/or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India restraining...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. Vs. Labour Appellate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom188; (1957)59BOMLR413; (1957)IILLJ37Bom
Shah, J.1. Special Civil Application No. 3577 of 1956. --This is an application by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the General Managerof the Bombay Electric Supply and TransportUndertaking of the Bombay Municipal Corporation,requesting this Court to issue a writ in the natureof certiorari or other writ, direction or order underArticle 236 of the Constitution or an order or directionin exercise of its powers of superintendence underArticle 227 of the Constitution against the Labour Appellate Tribunal, calling for the records of thecase relating to an order dated 13-11-1956 in Appeal (Bom) No. 289 of 1956 and to set aside andquash the decision and order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 2. The facts which give rise to this application are these: The second respondent was an employee of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. On 16-8-1955 the B.E/ S.T. Undertaking received a report from one Joshi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhoiwada Police Station, that the second respondent was s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »