Mumbai Court September 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.
S. Magnus Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom467; (1958)60BOMLR41; ILR1958Bom428
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 31-8-1950 and 31-8-1951 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(3A)(1) and the dispute relates to this inclusion.2. It appears that the assessee upto 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 1-7-1949, he entered into a partnership with his wife Mrs. Liselotte Magnus. The partnership deed was executed on 13-10-1949. Clause 7 of the partnership deed casts an obligation on both the partners to devote their time and attention exclusively to the business of the partnership; but ...
Liladhar Ratanlal Vyas Vs. Holkarmal Sohanlal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom528; (1958)60BOMLR203; ILR1959Bom29
1. This is a plaintiff' second appeal from the dismissal of his suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership.2. According to the plaintiff he entered into a partnership with defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1942 and contributed Rs. 5000/- as his share towards the capital of the partnership business. The partnership business continued till 28-7-1948. On which date it was dissolved by virtue of a notice served by the plaintiff. In that notice the plaintiff had demanded accounts of the partnership business but the defendants failed to render accounts. By reason of this failure, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit out of which this second appeal arises.3. Both the defendants denied that the first defendant had any connection with the partnership business. Both of them denied that the partnership business continued upto 28-7-48. Further according to them a sum of Rs. 5000/- contributed by the plaintiff was not towards the capital of the business but was by way of a deposit as se...
Vidyutrai Y. Desai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR37; [1958]33ITR510(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference raised a question regarding the taxation of 'dividend' as defined in section 2, sub-section (6A), clause (c), of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was a shareholder of a private limited company known as Desai Arvade Ltd. The said company were the managing agents of the Barsi Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. The capital of the company was Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 500 shares of Rs. 1,000 each and the assessee was a shareholder of 375 in his own name and as beneficial owner of 5 shares in the name of K.M. Oza. The company went into liquidation on the 18th of January, 1947. The liquidator realised the assets of the company excluding 1,000 shares of the Barsi Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. of which the company was the owner, paid thereout the costs of liquidation and the liability of the company in full, and had a balance in his hands of Rs. 3,72,907 which was distributed amongst the shareholders. The assessee's share of this distribution was Rs. 2,83,409. The...
Trustees of Late R.J. Vakil Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Nor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR517(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. On this reference certain questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal one at the instance of the assessees and two at the instance of the Income-tax Commissioner. The assessees are the trustees of a trust created by the late Sir Rustom Jehangir Vakil, who died in 1933 leaving behind him three sons, Jehangir, Percy and Toos, and his widow, Lady Tehmina. The relevant assessment year is 1950-51 and the accounting year is the financial year ending 31st March, 1950. One of the assets of the trust consists of 390 shares of the New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. of Bhavnagar. The said company carried on business at the relevant period at Bhavnagar outside the taxable territories and the dividend on these shares would have been taxable in the taxable territories only if it was received by the assessees in the taxable territories in the year of account within the meaning of section 14(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. A few relevant facts in connection with the dividend that was...
Gajadhar Hiralal Vs. the Municipal Committee, Basim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom378; (1958)60BOMLR419; ILR1958Bom625
Vyas, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Second Civil Judge. Washim, under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Civil Suit No. 77-B of 1955 pending in the court of the learned Judge. The learned Judge has framed a question and submitted it for decision by this court. The question submitted to us by the learned Judge is:'Whether the enhanced' rate of bales-tax since 1-4-1941 at the rate of Re. 0-4-0 per bale under Section 66(1)(b) of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act as applied to Berar is ultra vires of Article 276 of the Constitution of. India?'2. This reference arises in the following circumstances: The Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 77-B of 1955 is a registered partnership firm, doing work as a cotton pressing factory at Washim. The Defendant in the suit is the Municipal Committee of Washim. The Plaintiffs case is that till 1-4-1941, the Defendant, Municipal Committee, hart been recovering tax at the rate of Re. 0-2-3 per bale of 14 maunds weight pressed in t...
State Vs. Ramji Vithal Chaudhari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom381; (1958)60BOMLR329; 1958CriLJ1296; ILR1958Bom505
Shelat, J.1. This appeal raises a point of some interest on the interpretation of Section 361 of the Penal Code.2. The facts alleged by the prosecution were that wit. Rukhmabai was married to the respondent No. 1 Ramji Vithal Chaudhari, original accused No. 1, when Rukhmabai was only 7 or 8 years of age. For nearly 10 to 12 years the 1st respondent and the said Rukhmabai lived as a husband and wife and during that period a daughter by the name of Suman was born to her. In or about 1943 disputes arose between the 1st respondent and Rukhmabai. In or about the year 1944-45 the 1st respondent) married again with the result that Rukhmabai went to live with her father, one Hari Trimbak, with her minor daughter Suman. These disputes ultimately culminated in Rukhmabai filing a suit for divorce in the Court of the District Judge at Dhulia. A decree was passed in that suit in favour of Rukhmabai which ordered that the marriage between Rukhmabai and the 1st respondent was thereby annulled. The de...
Gopal Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR403(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The assessee before us is the Gopal Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, who have owned a textile mill for many years and manufacture textiles therein. The land on which the mills are situated is leasehold and about twenty-five years of the lease had to run during the relevant accounting year. The mills used to discharge waste water which accumulated in a pit in the mills' own compound and sometimes even overflowed the pit. The stagnation of the water and then its overflow caused nuisance and danger to human life in the vicinity, and the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Broach City, therefore, issued an order under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, not to collect or allow to collect waste water or any other water discharged from the mills in order to allow the said water to flow off as overflow from the said pit. Thereafter, some settlement was arrived at between the municipality and the assessee company with a view to make some suitable arrangement for the disc...
Surat Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR396(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The assessee in this case is the Surat Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. Among the objects of the bank is object No. 5 'to undertake every kind of banking and shroffi business' and the assessee in the relevant year of account ending 30th June, 1949, was carrying on banking business. During the course of its banking business, the assessee purchased Government security in the year of account and a profit of Rs. 53,229 was earned by the assessee. The assessee claimed exemption from tax in respect of the said amount of under an explanation to F.D. (C.R.) Notification R. Dis. No. 291-I.T./ 25, dated the 25th August, 1925, as amended by Notification No. 26 dated 25th June, 1927. The notification is in the following terms : 'The following classes of income shall be exempt from the tax payable under the said Act, but shall be take into account in determining the total income of an assessee for the purposes of...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Chugandas and Co. (Secur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1960Bom109; [1960]38ITR241(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The question referred to this court upon this reference is : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case interest received on securities held by the assessee formed part of the assessee's business income for the purpose of claiming relief under section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of determining this question are few. The assessee held securities as his stock-in-trade and he received interest on these securities in the assessment years 1947-48, and 1948-49, in the sums of Rs. 4,13,992 and Rs. 1,01,229 respectively. It was held by the Income-tax authorities that the assessee was entitle to the benefit of the provisions of section 25(3), and if, therefore, interest on securities was within the scope of that benefit, this interest would not be taxable. If, on the other hand interest on securities is outside the scope of the benefit conferred by section 25 (3), this interest would have to be taxed. The matter was dealt...
Babarao and ors. Vs. Hanumant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom75; ILR1959Bom19
D.V. Vyas, J. 1. These two first appeals Nos. 13 and 65 of 1950 arise out of a judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1948. First Appeal No. 65 is filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit No. 5-A of 1948 for several reliefs, amongst which are the following reliefs:(1) Recovery of possession of survey No. 12/4 of Burhanpur and survey Nos. 74, 75/2, 50/1 and 66/1A of Saur from defendants Nos. 3 and 4. (2) Recovery of possession of a tiled house and a thatched house at Saur. (3) Recovery of mesne profits for the above-mentioned fields for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The learned Judge of the trial Court has passed a decree directing that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 shall put the plaintiff in possession of the above-mentioned fields. The decree has further directed that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 shall also put the plaintiff in possession of certain two houses, namely, a titled house and a thatched house at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »