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.
Rowji Sojpal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom294; (1957)59BOMLR445; ILR1957Bom447
Chagla, C. J.1. This is one of those cases which goes to show that the legislature in enacting a taxing staute does not -- possibly cannot -- take into consideration all eventualities and all contingencies. The assessee was joint with this brother prior of 1932. On the 19th of April 1932 there was a partition and the propety 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 as between the assessee and his sons. There was a partition between the assessee and his sons on the nth of June 1944 and on that partition again the property came to the share of the as-cessee. 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...
industrial Development and Investments Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Ex ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR688(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Abdul Karim Silk Mills were being run by the partnership and one of the partners of this firm died on the 13th January, 1943, and in an action in this Court a receiver was appointed of the partnership assets on the 19th November, 1943. This receiver sold the assets of those mills to the assessee company on the 22nd January, 1944. The contention of the assessee was that it was entitled to take into consideration the price paid by it for the purpose of determining depreciation under the Excess Profits Tax Act. This contention was negatived by the Department, the department taking the view that the case fell within section 8 (3) of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The contention of the Department was upheld by the Tribunal and the assessee has now come before us on this reference. 2. Turning first to the section, section 8 (1) introduces a legal fiction that although there may be only a change in the persons carrying on a business, the business shall be deemed to have been disco...
National City Bank of New York Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR836(Bom)
Chagla. C.J.1. The assessee in the National City Bank of New York and the assessment are under the Business Profits Tax Act, and the contention of the bank was that certain amounts which it described as 'undivided profits' should be treated as reserves and added to its capital for the purpose of computing its taxable income under the Business Profits Tax Act. The Tribunal rejected this contention and the bank has come on this reference. 2. Now, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Century Spinning and . it is well settled as to what constitutes a reserve. A corporation might make profits should be dealt with. They might declare a dividend out of these profits if the profits can bear the declaration of a dividend. They might transfer certain amounts a general or specific reserve and there would be a balance left over which will be carried forward to the credit of the profit and loss account. If the profits are not allocated or appropriated ...
W.A. Guff Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR826(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee was employed by Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son Ltd. On the 27th of May, 1946, as an executive in charge of a newly opened department of the company. On the 23rd of March, 1948, he received a communication from London to the effect that it was impossible to continue his activity and that in order to safeguard his personal interest he was being given a chance to explore the sale of business to outside capital. In fact, his services were terminated on the 14th of November, 1948, and on the termination of his services he was paid a sum of Rs. 12,000. The Taxing Department sought to bring this amount to tax and the contention of the assessee was that this sum represented a compensation for loss of office and therefore it was not liable to tad. The Income-tax Officer took the view against the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner decided in favor of the assessee; but the Tribunal came to a conclusion contrary to the contention of the assessee. The result is, ...
W.A.G. Cuff Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom212; (1957)59BOMLR436
Chagla, C.J.1. The assesses was employed by Messrs. Thos. Cook and Son Ltd. on the 27th of May 1946 as an executive IB charge of a newly opened department of the company. On the 23rd of March 1948 he received a, communication from London to the effect that it was impossible to continue his activity and that in order to safeguard his personal interest he was being given a chance to explore the sale of business to outside capital. In fact, his services were terminated on the 13th of November 1948 and on the termination of his services he was paid a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. The Taxing Department sought to bring this amount to tax and the contention of the assessee was that this gum represented a compensation for loss of office and therefore it was not liable to tax. The Income-tax officer took the view against the assessee. The A. A. C. decided in favour of the assessee; but the Tribunal came to a conclusion contrary to the contention of the assessee. The result is, the assessee has now come ...
Golden Tobacco Co. Private Ltd. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom186; (1957)59BOMLR409; ILR1957Bom795
Shah, J.1. This is an application by the petitioners praying that an appropriate Writ be issued by this Court restraining the State Government from enforcing the Collection Order dated 26-7-1956 against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 4,874/- in a manner prejudicially affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners by levy of non-agricultural assessment otherwise than by authority of law. 2. The petitioners are the owners of. S. Nos. 193, 194A. Hissas Nos 1 and 3, 195 Hissas Nos. 13h and 17. 262 Hissas Nos. 1. 2 and 3 (part) of Vile Parle in Greater Bombay, The lands admeasure 13.539 square yards in area. The lands have been converted to non-agricultural user since the year 1928 and several buildings have been erected thereon by the petitioners, Originally these lands were part of a Khoti estate. In 1950 the State Legislature enacted the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act of 1951, and the lands became Khalsa lands. Thereafter the Additional District Deputy ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. D.V. Ghurye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1957
Reported in: [1957]31ITR683(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. A very short question in regard to the construction of section 34, sub-section (1), and the proviso to section 34, sub-section (3), arises on this reference. The assessee made his return of his income for the assessment year 1943-44 and the assessment was completed on the 17th of July 1944. It was then discovered that the assessee had not shown a certain income. Under the circumstances the Income-tax Officer issued a notice on the 20th of March, 1952, and this notice was served on the 16th of April, 1952. This assessment was completed on the 28th March, 1953. The assessment was challenged on the ground that the notice pursuant to which this assessment was made was not valid, and the Tribunal held that the challenge was justified and held that the assessment could not be sustained. 2. Now section 34 (1) deals with the notice and it provides that in cases falling under clause (a), with which we are concerned in this case, he may serve a notice within eight years of the end...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. D.V. Ghurye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom139; (1957)59BOMLR433; ILR1957Bom377
Chagla, C.J. 1. A very short question in regard to the construction of Section 34, Sub-section (1) and the proviso to Section 34, Sub-section (3) arises on this reference. The assesses made his return of his income for the assessment year 1943-44 and the assessment was completed on the 17th of July 1944. It was then discovered that the assessee had not shown a certain income. Under the circumstances the Income-tax Officer issued a notice on the 20th of March 1952 and this notice was served on the 16th of April 1952. This assessment was completed on the 28th of March 1953. The assessment was challenged on the ground that the notice pursuant to which this assessment was made was not valid, and the Tribunal held that the challenge was Justified and held that the assessment could not be sustained.2. Now Section 34 (1) deals with the notice and It provides that in cases falling under Clause (a), with which we are concerned in this case, he may serve a notice within eight years of the end of...
Savitra Khandu Beradi Vs. Nagar Agricultural Sale and Purchase Co-oper ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom178; (1957)59BOMLR425; ILR1958Bom39
Shah, J.1. The Nagar Agricultural Sale and Purchase Cooperative Society, which we will hereafter refer to as 'the Society', is registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. The Society carries on business in fruits on commission basis. Savitra Khandu Berad, whom we will hereafter refer to as 'the petitioner', was a member of the Society and was also an Honorary Secretary of the Society from March 1947 to September 1947. As an office bearer the petitioner could not undertake any business of the Society in his own name. He, however, carried on the business of the Society in the name of one Pawle. This Pawle purchased fruits from the Society and sold/them at Bombay for and on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner then passed an agreement on 16th September 1948, whereby he covenanted to pay Rs. 1,051/5/6 which were found due from Pawle. On 21st and 22nd February, 1949, the petitioner paid Rs. 240/- and Rs. 200/- respectively in part satisfaction of his liability, and the balan...
Juwansinhji Balvirisinhji Vs. Members of the Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Bom182; (1957)59BOMLR287; ILR1957Bom459
Shelat, J.1. The petitioner and his four brothers had as Cadets of the former Lakhtar State received as Giras from that State four villages viz. Moti Kishol, Mul Kishol, Rupavati and Karangadh and other lands situate in the village of Talavani, and had obtained the Hak Patrak dated 15th October 1928 duly registered before the Political Agent of the old Eastern Kathiawar Agency. 2. Of these villages only Karangadh and the lands situated in Talavani are situate within the territory of the then State of Saurashtra and therefore, the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act XXV of 1951 as stated in Section 2 thereof would only be applicable to those lands situate in the villages of Karangadh and Talvani. The case of the petitioner is that being divided and separate in food, worship and estate he and his brothers are holding the Giras as tenants-in-common as the lands are not yet divided by motes and bounds. They therefore say that they are Girasdars within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the said Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›