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.
Sitaldas Tirathdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR390(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The assessee in this case is assessed in the status of an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1953-54 and 1954-55. In these two years the assessee paid Rs. 1,350 and Rs. 18,000 respectively as maintenance to his wife and children. This maintenance was payable under a decree of court in Suit No. 102 of 1951 but the decree had not made the payment of this maintenance a charge on the property. The Tribunal held that this was a mere case of the assessee being compelled to apply a portion of his income for the maintenance of a person whom he was under a personal and legal obligation to maintain and since there was no charge created on the property these amounts could not be deducted from the income of the assessee. The question of law that arises from the order of the Tribunal, and which has been referred to us is : 'Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,350 and Rs. 18,000 from his total income of the previous year relevant to the assessment y...
Tulsidas Kilachand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR383(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The question referred to us on this reference is : 'Whether on a true construction of the deed of declaration of trust dated 5th March 1951, the net dividend income of Rs. 30.404 on 120 shares of Kilachand Devchand & Co. Ltd., and 244 shares of Kesar Corporation Ltd. held under trust by the assessee for the benefit of his wife was income liable to be included in the total income of the assessee ?' 2. A declaration of trust was made by the assessee on the 5th of March, 1951. It was a short document and the relevant part of it is : '.... I, Tulsidas Kilachand..... hereby declare that I hold 244 shares of Kesar Corporation Ltd., and 120 shares of Kilachand Devchand and Co. Ltd.,.... upon trust to pay the income thereof to my wife Vimla for a period of seven years from the date hereof or her death (whichever event may be earlier) and I hereby declare that this trust shall not be revocable.'3. Now, although the question has been raised in a general form, it is clear that the...
Asoka Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Ajmer, Raj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR377(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The question referred to us on this reference is : 'Whether the assessee is entitled to claim for the assessment year depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) and 19(2)(via) which when added to the depreciation allowance, including initial depreciation allowance already made till then, would exceed the original cost to the assessee of the depreciable asset ?' 2. One would have thought that as a mere matter of common sense and accountancy, no depreciation can exceed the original cost to the assessee of the depreciable asset, and the question, therefore, would be capable of an easy answer; but Mr. Mehta, appearing for the assessee in this case, has put forward before us a rather ingenious argument to induce us to hold that under the provisions of the Income-tax Act depreciation allowances are admissible even if the result of such allowances is that the total depreciation allowance in respect of an asset exceeds its original cost. Now, the relevant proviso with which...
The Asoka Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, Aj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom373; (1958)60BOMLR35; ILR1958Bom319
Tendolkar, J.1. The question referred to us on this reference is:'Whether the assessee is entitled to claim for the assessment year depreciation allowance under Sections 10 (2) (vi) and 10(2) (vi-a) which When added to the depreciation allowance, including initial depreciation allowance already made till then, would exceed the original cost to the assessee of the depreciable asset?''2. One would have thought that as a mere matter of common sense and accountancy, no depreciation can exceed the original cost to the assesses of the depreciable asset, and the question, therefore, would be capable of an easy answer; but Mr. Mehta, appearing for the assessee in this case, has put forward before us a rather ingenious argument to induce us to hold that under the provisions of the Income-tax Act depreciation allowances are admissible even if the result of such allowances is that the total depreciation allowance in respect of an asset exceeds its original cost.3. Now, the relevant proviso with w...
Shamji Kheta and anr. Vs. A.V. Patwardhan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom474
1. This is an appeal under Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The relevant facts are briefly these: There was a limited company called the Midland Laboratories which went into voluntary liquidation on 25-3-1951. Shri C.L. Verma of Nagpur was appointed a liquidator. During the course of liquidation, he realised between 15,000 to 16,000 rupees. Out of this amount he made disbursements to four creditors including himself to the tune of about Rs. 7,000/-. Upon an application made by the respondent No. 1 and another person Shri Verma was removed from his position as liquidator and in his place the respondent No. 2 Shri K.S. Mishra, Advocate, Nagpur, was appointed a liquidator by the District Judge, Nagpur. Shri Mishra issued notices to the four persons including Shri Verma whose debts had been paid off by Shri Verma to refund the amount paid to them. Shri Verma was ordered by the Court to repay the amount which he had paid to himself. An appeal preferred by him before the High C...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra Vs. Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR349(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question that arises for our decision on this reference is : 'Whether there was material for the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 35,807 granted to the assessee was a maintainace allowance exempt within the meaning of paragraph 15(i) of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 ?' 2. In order to bring out the real dispute between the parties we re-formulated is as under : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 35,807 granted to the assessee was a maintenance allowance exempt within the meaning of paragraph 15(i) of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950 ?' 3. The assessee is Her Highness Maharani Shri Kesarkunwerba Saheb of Movi and wife of His Highness Lukhdhirji of Morvi, who abdicated in favour of his son on 21st January, 1948. The Morvi State, which was formerly an independent State before its manager with the Union of the States of Saurashtra, intergrated in Saurashtra on 16th March, 1948. The question which ...
Shamrao Dayaram Lodhi Vs. the Municipal Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR189
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of Shri S.N. Raina, Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur, confirming the decree of Shri B.M. Sapre, Civil Judge, Class II, Saoner, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for the refund of a sum of Rs. 650 and awarding to the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,293-12-0 by way of set-off.2. The relevant facts are briefly as follows. The municipal committee, Saoner, advertised plot No. 6 for being leased for a period of 30 years by a public auction to be held on October 10, 1947. That plot was put up for auction on that date and the plaintiff offered a bid of Rs. 2,600 in respect of it. His bid being the highest, he was called upon to deposit one-fourth of the amount bid by him and accordingly he forthwith deposited Rs. 650. The plaintiff did not pay the balance but withdrew his bid and intimated this fact in a letter sent to the municipal committee on October 28, 1947. The ground on which he withdrew his bid was that there was a disput...
Mahindra Kumar Mohanlal and Mohanand Kumar Mohanlal Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR360(Bom)
TENDOLKAR, J. - This reference arises out of an order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee under the Excess Profits Tax Act. There were seven appeals in all, but they were consolidated as a common question was involved in all of them. The only point urged in the appeals before the Tribunal was that the assessments to excess profits tax were bad in law, as they were on a Hindu undivided family, which had been disrupted on the 4th of November, 1945. Notice under section 13(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act had been issued long after the date of disruption and the assessments consequently were made much later. It appears that an application under section 25A of the Income-tax Act was pending before the Income-tax Officer at the time when the appeals were presented before the Tribunal against the excess profits tax assessment.The Tribunal in the first instance remanded the matter to the Excess Profits Tax Officer to determine as a fact whether the family was disrupte...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Filmistan Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom345; (1958)60BOMLR32; ILR1958Bom419; [1958]33ITR334(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. The question that falls for determination on this reference is whether the first proviso toSub-section (1) of Section 30, which confers a right of appeal to the A. A. C. against certain orders, enacts a condition precedent to the presentation of the appeal or to the exercise of the right of appeal at all; or whether, in the alternative, it does not affect the right of appeal, but it affects merely the hearing and final disposal of the appeal.2. The relevant facts are that for the assessment year 1949-50 a notice of demand under Section 29 was made for the payment of Rs. 1,80,646/. 14/- as income-tax and super-tax. The amount-was payable ,on 17-7-1954; but at the request of the assesses instalments were allowed and the last instalment of Rs. 30,646/14/- was made payable on or before 20-3-1955. There was default in payment of the last instalment and the Income-tax Officer, acting under Section 46(1), imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- on 31-3-1955. The asses-see preferred a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Shanti K. Maheshwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR313(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference involves in the main an interpretation of certain provisions in the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation in India and Pakistan in respect of which a cynic may well say that the language has been employed to conceal the thoughts of its authors. The facts giving rise to the reference are few. The assessment year is 1953-54 and the previous accounting year ended on the 31st of March, 1953. The status of the assessee is that of a resident and ordinarily resident in the taxable territories. The total income of the assessee determined by the Income-tax Officer was Rs. 77,154. In this total was included dividend income of the assessee from the Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. The amount of the dividend was Rs. 8,000. The company had its registered office in Delhi, but according to the certificate issued under section 20 of the Indian Income-tax Act read with rule 14 the company's income chargeable to tax in the taxable territory was 6.7 per cent. and in Pakistan 9...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »