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, Madhya Pradesh and Bhandara, Nagpur Vs. M. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR520(Bom)
Tendolkar, J.1. This reference raises a short question of law. The question as formulated i : 'Whether the conservancy tax and the water rate are taxes levied in respect of property (payable wholly by the owner or partly by the owner and partly by the tenant) within the meaning of the words of the third proviso to section 9(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?' 2. Now, the assessee in this case is one Mr. M. G. Chitnavis, who owns several properties most of which are in the City of Nagpur, and the matter was dealt with by the Income-tax authorities and by the Tribunal on the footing that all properties were in Nagpur. The income from property was computed under section 9 of the Income-tax Act for the year of account ending with 31st May, 1950. The assessee's gross receipts amounted to Rs. 1,00,840. This sum included property tax Rs. 4,720, water rate Rs. 6,480 and conservancy tax Rs. 3,568 making a total of Rs. 14,769, which were separately credited in the books of account of the assessee...
Dayabhai Girdharbhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR677(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. This reference raises a very short question. It is as follow : 'Whether in view of the assessee having filed a revised return disclosing the item of Rs. 11,361 which it had deliberately concealed at the time of filing the first return and in view of the assessment having been made under the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the assessee is not liable to be penalised under the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Ac ?' 2. The short facts are that the assessee made a return of income-tax on the 13th of September, 1951, in respect of the assessment year 1951-52, the previous accounting year being the year ending with Diwali 1950. There was an appointment given by the Income-tax Officer on the 25th of January, 1952, to the assessee, and a partner of the assessee firm attended before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee had shops at Warora, Wun, Bhadrawati and Narsinda and it was found that in the wholesale shop at Warora on disclosed sa...
Bombay Cycle Stores Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR13(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. As directed by the Nagpur High Court, two questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal, and they are : '(1) Was the Tribunal entitled to compute the gross income from the sales of bicycles and motor-cycles under the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, even though the gross profits ascertained by reference to the accounts of the assessee were found to be correct (2) Were the Income-tax authorities right in adding Rs. 12,174 paid in respect of sales tax to the income of the assessee even though it had not realised it from its customers ?' 2. Now, the assessee is a private limited company which dealt in motor-cycles, cycles and accessories in the assessment year 1950-51. The accounting year was the year ending 31st December, 1949. The Income-tax Officer found that the profits and gains could not properly be deduced from the accounts kept by the assessee, applied the proviso to section 13 and estimated the sales at Rs. 10 lakhs and a flat rate...
V.D. Dhanwatay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madhya Pradesh and Bhopa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR682(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. A very short question of law arises for determination upon this reference, and the question i : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 18,000 was legally included in the assessee family's total incom ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Its karta is on V. D. Dhanwatay. There was a business known as Shivaji Fine Art Litho Works which was carried on by a partnership under a deed of partnership dated the 1st April, 1951. V. D. Dhanwatay was one of the partners and it is common ground that in this partnership he represented the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two minor sons. Clause (16) of the partnership deed provided for the payment of remuneration to V. D. Dhanwatay as well as the other partners at the rates mentioned in that clause. V. D. Dhanwatay was to get Rs. 1,250 per month, which appears subsequently to have been increased to Rs. 1,500 per month in the accounting year, so that the remuneration he received during the accounting year was Rs. 18,000...
Jamnadas Daga Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom239; (1957)59BOMLR1216; ILR1958Bom365; [1958]33ITR274(Bom)
Tendolkar, J. 1. On this Reference the Tribunal has stated to us two questions raised at the instance of the assessee and one question raised at the instance of the Income-tax Commissioner. The assessee before us has not pressed the questions raised at his instance, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to answer them; and the only Question that survives is the question raised at the instance of the Income-tax Commissioner, and the question is In the following terms:'Whether the share income of the assessee from the unregistered firm (which is separately taxed) namely Rs. 26,110/- can be set off against their share loss from registered firms, namely, Rs. 13,167/-?'2. Now, the relevant facts for the purpose of decision of this issue are these. The assessee is a partner in two registered firms, namely, R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spg. & Wvg. Mills, Hingan-ghat and R. B. Bansilal Abirchand, Kamptee, and also in an unregistered firm by the name of Bissessar House Estate, Nagpur. In the relevant a...
A.H. Kharodawalla Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1221
Chainani, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a land at Dohad. On February 28, 1951, the Collector of Panch Mahals requisitioned this land for respondent No. 2, the State Transport Corporation, under Section 5(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act. The Prant Officer was then authorised to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Act. After holding an inquiry, he passed an order that the petitioner should be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 10-14-0 per guntha per month. Respondent No. 2 considered that the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner was excessive. It, therefore, submitted a representation to the State Government. The Government called for the record of the proceedings held by the Prant Officer and then issued a notice to the petitioner. In this notice the petitioner was informed that in passing his order the Prant Officer had failed to take several material facts into consideration, that he had, therefore, not app...
Provincial Transport Service Company, Nagpur Vs. Majumdar N.H.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR177; (1958)IILLJ34Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside the order of the State Industrial Court passed in revision setting aside the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 2. The relevant facts are briefly as follows : Respondent 2 was in the employment of the petitioner from February 7, 1952. He was challenged by the police for an offence under S. 304A of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by him on February 9, 1953. He was found guilty of the offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. In appeal, the conviction of respondent 2 was maintained but the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 150 or in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Thereafter, the petitioner terminated the services of respondent 2 by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. This was in May 9, 1955. Respondent 2 received the salary but he moved the Assistant Labour ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›