Mumbai Court September 1957 Judgments
Rajkumar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom177; (1957)59BOMLR1249; [1953]33ITR750(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. The assessment proceedings out of which this petition for a writ arises have had a chequered career, and what is sought to be challenged on this petition now is an order made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (5) of the Income-tax Act after the High Court had answered certain questions referred to it.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1942-43 and the accounting, year was the calendar year 1941. The assesses company carried on business in the Holkar State at Indore and was assessed in the status of a non-resident company. During the accounting year it had sales of cloth amounting to Rs. 50,33,183/- and the company itself supplied to the Income-tax Officer an analysis of these sales which the Income-tax Officer by his order accepted. It is essential to set out that analysis in order to understand the contentions of the parties that arise for determination of this writ petition: Classification of SalesTotal SalesTotal Realisations (out...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR750a(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The assessment proceedings out of which this petition for a writ arises have had a chequered career, and what is sought to be challenged on this petition now is an order made by the Appellate Tribunal under section 66(5) of the Income-tax Act after the High Court had answered certain questions referred to it. 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1942-43 and the accounting year was the calendar year 1941. The assessee company carried on business in the Holkar State at Indore and was assessed in the status of a non-resident company. During the accounting year it had sales of cloth amounting to Rs. 50,33,183 and the company itself supplied to the Income-tax Officer analysis of these sales which the Income-tax Officer by his order accepted. It is essential to set out that analysis in order to understand the contentions of the parties that arises for determination on this writ petition : --------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR681(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The question referred to us on this reference is a very short one and it is capable of an easy answer. The question is : 'Whether having regard to the provisions of section 10(2) read with section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee company is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,80,000 on account of bonus for the year 1951 in computing the business profits for the assessment year 1952-53 ?' 2. Now, the assessee is the Nagri Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, and the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1952-53 is the calendar year 1951. There was a dispute in regard to the bonus payable to the workers for the year 1951 and the matter was referred to conciliation. The conciliation board gave its award in June, 1952, and a bonus was actually distributed in December, 1952. The assessee company maintains its accounts on a mercantile basis and no entry was made in the account books of the company for the year 1951 making a provision for payment of bonus. However, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Dajiba Vs. the Accountant-general of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom283; (1958)60BOMLR241; ILR1958Bom514; (1959)ILLJ117Bom
G.B. Badkas, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to ignore the order of the President dismissing the petitioner from service and to take him back in service. 2. The petitioner was employed in the Office of the Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur as Upper Division Clerk. The appointing authority of the petitioner was the Accountant-General, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner belonged to the civil service of the Union of India, class III, and was holding a permanent civil post under the Union of India. Consequent on the coming into force of the States Reorganization Act (No. XXXVII of 1957), the petitioner's services were allotted to the Account ant-General of Bombay, the respondent No. 1, and since 1-11-1956 the petitioner had been working under the said authority, who thereupon became the authority equal in rank with the petitioner's appointing authority. The respondent No. 2 is t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii, Bombay Vs. Nanalal Haridas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR674(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference raises a question of law which can only be answered in one way in view of a decision of a Division Bench of this court, to which I was a party, in Cambatta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and the only reason for the Income-tax Commissioner having the question referred to us can be wishes to canvass it before a higher Tribunal. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family. The family owned 1,842 shares of the Cotton Export and Import Ltd.; but since the family could not hold the shares in its own name, they were registered in the names of the different coparceners of the family. The Income-tax Officer invoked the provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act and directed that the undistributed portion of the assessable income of the said company shall be deemed to have been distributed as dividends amongst the shareholders. The proportionate shares attributed to the 1,842 shares after being grossed up came to Rs. 54,000 and the question th...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR529(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The applicant before us is S. M. Modi who produced the picture 'Jhansi-ki-Rani'. For the purpose of this production he had employed two foreigners, Ernest Haller and Forrest Judd. They arrived in India in September and November, : 1951, respectively. Mr. Modi had paid remuneration to these employees in the sums of Rs. 1,31,520 and Rs. 33,478 respectively in the two accounting years 1951-52 and 1952-53. If these foreigners were not resident in India during the accounting years, Mr. Modi was under a liability to deduct income-tax at the maximum rate from the salary paid to these employees at the time of payment by reason of section 18, sub-section (3A). Mr. Modi failed to do so. The Income-tax Officer was of opinion that these two employees were not 'resident' in the taxable territories and directed Mr. Modi to pay income-tax and super-tax with appropriate surcharge in the case of both these foreigners. The demand was not paid; and Mr. Modi filed two appeals one in each c...
Tag this Judgment!S. Magnus Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR538(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The assessee in this case was assessed in the status of an individual for two assessment years, 1951-52 and 1952-53, the accounting years ending on the 31st of August, 1950, and the 31st of August, 1951, respectively. In making these assessments, there was included in the income of the assessee salary and commission on sales received by his wife. This inclusion was made under the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(i) and the dispute relates to this inclusion. 2. It appears that the assessee up to the end of June, 1949, was carrying on business in partnership with one Gutmann under the style of Messrs. Metallica Works, a business of refining, melting and casting metals. The partnership was dissolved at the end of June, 1949, and on the 1st of July, 1949, he entered into a partnership with his wife Mrs. Liselotte Magnus. The partnership deed was executed on the 13th of October, 1949. Clause 7 of the partnership deed casts an obligation on both the partners to devote their tim...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwasrao Vithoba Vs. Sahebrao Yeshwantrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom375; (1958)60BOMLR413; ILR1958Bom531
Vyas, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Mudholkar, affirming the decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, East Berar Division, Amravati, in Civil Appeal No. 57-A of 1944. Civil Appeal No. 57-A of 1944 arose out of Civil Suit No. 111-A of 1940 which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Chandur. It was a suit for partition of joint family property, plaintiff No. 3 claiming partition as the adopted son of defendant No. 2. The trial Court held that the adoption of plaintiff No. 3 was a valid adoption and decreed the suit. On defendant No. 1 appealing from the decision of the trial Court, the first appellate Court confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal.2. One Balaji had three sons, Vithoba, Sheoram and Harba. Sheoram separated from the family, taking away his share in the joint family property. Thereafter, there remained Vithoba and Harba who continued to be Joint. Vithoba died on 2-12-...
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas Deorao and ors. Vs. Chandrabhagabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom420; (1958)60BOMLR570
Vyas, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mudholkar dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs which they had filed from a judgment of the First Additional District Judge, East Berar Division, Amravati, in Civil Appeal No. 23-A of 1946. The said Civil Appeal No. 23-A of 1946 was filed by the plaintiffs from a judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Wun, in Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1945. By the said judgment and decree the learned Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of certain properties mentioned in schedule A to the plaint and also for possession of certain other properties mentioned in schedules B and C to the plaint.2. Now, a few facts leading up to the present litigation may be briefly stated, One Deorao had two wives. The names of both the wives happened to be the same. Both were called Chandrabhaga. For convenience, therefore, we shall refer to the first wife of Deorao as Chandrabhaga I and the s...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Modi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom430; (1958)60BOMLR143; ILR1958Bom432
Tendolkar, J.1. The applicant before us is Section M. Modi who produced the picture 'Jhansi-ki-Rani'. For the purpose of this production he had employed two foreigners Ernest Haller and Forrest Judd. They arrived in India in September and November, 1951 respectively. Mr. Modi had paid remuneration to these employees in the sums of Rs. 1,31,520/- and Rs. 33,478/- respectively in the two accounting years 1951-52 and 1952-53. If these foreigners were not resident in India during the accounting years, Mr. Modi was under a liability to deduct income-tax at the maximum rate from the salary paid to these em-ployees at the time of payment by reason of Section 18, Sub-section (3A). Mr. Modi failed to do so. The Income-tax Officer was of opinion that these two employees were not 'resident' in the taxable territories and directed Mr. Modi to pay income-tax and supertax with appropriate surcharge in the case of both these foreigners. The demand was not paid; and Mr. Modi filed two appeals one in e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »