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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. T.M. Bhumraddi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR82(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us on this reference and they are : '(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case there was a business connection in British India between the appellant firm and Messrs. B.V. Bhumraddi and Company of Bombay (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in refusing to consider the contention of the Commissioner that the income of the assessee, or part of the income thereof, was received in British India (as it then was) ?' 2. The assessees are T.M. Bhumraddi and B.M. Bhumraddi, two brothers, who were the proprietors of Shivanand Oil Mills. They had three oil mills in the Hyderabad State at Gulbarga, Yadgiri, and Zahirabad. The oil manufactured at Zahirabad was wholly sold in the Hyderabad State, but the oil manufactured at Gulbarga an Yadgiri was sold in British India; and it is in respect of these sales that the two questions have arisen. The relevant assessment years are 1940-41, 1941-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44. It appears t...
Corporation of City of Nagpur Vs. N.H. Mujumdar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom231; (1958)60BOMLR180; ILR1958Bom493
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award made by the State Industrial Court at Nagpur on 3rd June 1957, and for issue of such orders and directions to to the respondents 2 and 3 prohibiting them from taking steps for implementing that award.2. The relevant facts are these : The petitioner is the Corporation of the City of Nagpur. The Government of the former State of Madhya Pradesh by a notification published on 23rd October 1956 referred twenty-one demands of the employees of the Corporation for arbitration to the State Industrial Court under Section 39 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. A preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Court to entertain the reference was raised by the Corporation. The State Industrial Court ruled that this objection would be decided after recording evidence. A further objection was raised by the ...
R.S. Rekhchand Gopaldas Mohota and anr. Vs. the State Industrial Court ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom473
Kotval, J. 1. This petition is directed against interlocutory orders of the State Industrial Court in a proceeding under Section 38A of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act commenced by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners.2. Only two questions arise in this petition. The first is whether the assessors referred to in Section 22(4) of the Act must joint in all the proceedings before the State Industrial Court or whether that Court could undertake any of these proceedings in the absence of the assessors. The other question raised is whether one of the assessor viz. Mr. Sonkamle, respondent No. 3, who was the President of the Akola Mazdoor Sangh, which was the applicant before the State Industrial Court, could be an assessor when he was himself a party to the proceedings.3. So far as the first question is concerned it is concluded by a decision of a division Bench of this Court reported in Provincial Transport Services v. N.H. Mazumdar, 1957 Nag LJ 40...
J.K. Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR32(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. This reference has been remanded to us for disposal by the Supreme Court and the question that remains to be disposed of by us after the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is question No. 2 which was originally referred to us, but which we did not feel it necessary then to determine in the view that we took of question No. 1. That question is : 'Whether on the facts of the case the business carried on by the trustee falls to be considered under section 4(3)(i) or section 4(3)(ia) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. For the purpose of determining this question, it is not necessary to state many facts. It is sufficient to state that under a trust deed dated the 15th June, 1945, according to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council, the business of a managing agency was held in trust. Therefore, the income derived from managing agency has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as falling within section 4(3)(i) since the word 'property' in that...
J.K. Trust, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess Profits Tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom191; (1957)59BOMLR1255; ILR1958Bom385; [1957]32ITR535(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference has been remanded to us for disposal by the Supreme Court and the question that remains to be disposed of by us after the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is Question No. 2 which was originally referred to us, but which we did not feel it necessary then to determine in the view that we took of Question No. 1. That question is:'Whether on the facts of the case the business carried on by the trustees falls to be considered under Section 4 (3) (i) or Section 4 (3) (ia) of the Income-tax Act?'2. For the purpose of determining this question, it is not necessary to state many facts. It is sufficient to state that under a trust deed dated 15-6-1945, according to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council, the business of a managing agency was held in trust. Therefore, the Income derived from the managing agency has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as falling within Section 4 (3) (i) since the word 'property' in that sub...
The Municipality of Chopda Vs. Motilal Manekchand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom487; (1958)60BOMLR48; ILR1958Bom483
Shah, J. 1. In this appeal, the question as to the competence of the Municipality of Chopda in the district of East Khandesh to levy under the Bombay District Municipal Act a tax designated the 'cotton manufacturing tax' at the rate of one rupee per bale of cotton full-pressed within the municipal limits of Chopda, falls to be determined.2. The Chopda Municipality is declared to be a District Municipality under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Act 3 of 1901) by the Government of Bombay. By Section 59 of the Act, the Municipality is entitled, subject to the general or special orders which the State Government may pass in that behalf, to impose for the purposes of the Act the taxes specified in that section. In 1919 the Municipality imposed a 'cotton manufacturing tax', with the sanction of the Provincial Government, at the rate of one and for every bale of cotton pressed within the municipal limits, and the tax was made payable at the time when the bales were pressed by the owner (of ...
Pandurang Kashinath More Vs. Union of India, Owning the Bombay Telepho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Bom134; (1958)60BOMLR342; ILR1958Bom1266; (1958)IILLJ38Bom
S.T. Desai, J.1. This appeal raises questions of far reaching consequences and the controversy relates to the true measure of the guarantee of equal opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State, enjoined by Article 16 of the Constitution. Is the constitutional guarantee confined to what is generally described as permanent employment or does it also embrace temporary employment terminable at short notice or at will. Simultaneously arise the question: Does this concept of equality in matters of employment ensures of equality in matters of employment ensures (sic) for the benefit of the citizen not merely in case of his initial engagement but also in case of matters relating to the termination of that engagement? The appeal is brought against a decree of dismissal passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the order of his suspension and removal from service was void and ille...
Abdul Aziz Ansari Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom279; (1957)59BOMLR1259; ILR1958Bom375; [1958]9STC135(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. A few relevant dates must be given at the outset. On the 28th of October 1952, proceedings under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, were initiated against the assessee by two notices and there was subsequently an ex parte assessment. On the 17th April 1956, revision application presented by the assessee to the Sales Tax Tribunal was dismissed by the Tribunal; but it is the assessee's case that this order of dismissal was received by them only on the 15th of May 1956. On the 11th of August 1956. there was an application to the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the 6th of November 1956. The order of dismissal was received by the assesses on the 3rd to December 1956 and the present application was filed on the 7th of January 1957. 2. In answer to this application, a preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the State of Bombay that the a...
Sadashiv Shankar Dandige Vs. the Gandhi Sewa Samaj Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom247; (1958)60BOMLR97
ORDER1. These are petitions at the instance of two persons, Sadashiv Shankar Dandige and Chintaman Jagannath Kathikar, praying for a summary order directing the opponent Company to register the transfer of shares of the Company in their favour under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).2. The Gandhi Sewa Samaj, Limited, is a public limited company. They have an authorized capital of 10000 shares of Rs. 10/- each, of which 1304 shares have been subscribed. By two deeds of transfer, two shareholders of the Company, namely, Mr. M.P. Jog and Mr. K.B. Tandaiyya, transferred their hundred shares each, respectively to the petitioner S. S. Dandige on 24-5-56 and to the petitioner C.J. Kathikar on 13-6-1956. Both the transfers were refused by the Company who, in the first instance merely informed the petitioners that they declined to register the transfer of the shares in their names. No reasons were assigned.3. Both the petitioners then moved the Central Government in appe...
Lajwanti Sial Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhandara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR526(Bom)
ORDER1. This proceeding under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay (herein-after called the Tribunal), in Income-tax Appeal No. 190 of 1950-51. The Tribunal has submitted to this Court for judgment the following questions of la : (1) Whether the assessee in effecting the transfer of the management of the coal mines to the company made a capital gain and, if so, the extent thereo (2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, whether the law imposing a tax on capital gains is intra vire (3) If the answer to question (1) be in the negative, whether in effecting the transfer of the management of the coal mines to the company the assessee made an income liable to tax and, if so, the extent thereo 2. The dispute relates to the assessment for the financial year 1st April, 1947, to 31st March, 1948. The assessee was Rai Saheb P.S. Sial, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and is now represented...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »