Mumbai Court October 1958 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.
Nagpur Kshatriya Khattik Samaj and ors. Vs. Corporation of the City of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom112; (1959)61BOMLR468; ILR1959Bom1047
Y.S. Tambe, J. 1. The aforesaid applications will be disposed of by this judgment. In our opinion, it would be convenient to dispose of all these applications by this common judgment, as they arise out of the same set of facts culminating in the passing of resolution No. 77 on 28-3-1958 and the action taken by the Corporation thereafter. The respondent in all the aforesaid applications is the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation.2. Facts giving rise to these applications are: The Corporation was constituted on 2-3-1951 under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (Central Provinces and Berar Act No. II of 1950) hereinafter referred to as the Act. Since that date, i.e. 2-3-1951, civil administration of the City of Nagpur is conducted and managed by the Corporation under the provisions of the Act. Prior to that date, civil administration of the City of Nagpur was conducted and managed by the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur under various Municipa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom431; (1959)61BOMLR399; ILR1959Bom1438; [1959]36ITR124(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. Mr. Amarchand Shroff who was an attorney of this Court and a partner in the firm of attorneys Messrs. Amarchand and Mangaldas died on 7-7-1949. There were three partners in the firm, Mr. Amarchand, Mr. Mangaldas and Mr. Hiralal. Mr. Remesh, son of Mr Amarchand joined the firm as a partner on 1st December 1949 and an arrangement was arrived at between him and the continuing partners after the death of Mr. Amarchand. In respect of work done prior to 7-7-1949, the realisation was to be divided between all the three previous partners; in respect of work done between 8-7-1949 and 30-11-1949, it was to be divided between Mr. Mangaldas and Mr. Hiralal and realisations made in respect of work done after 1-12-1949 was to be divided between the tow old partners and the new partner Mr. Ramesh. Mr. Amarchand was being taxed on cash basis. Large sums of moneys were realised during the subsequent five years after Mr. Amarchand's death and the amounts paid to his estate were Rs. 37,8...
Radhakishan Ramnath Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR711; (1959)IILLJ177Bom
1. The applicants are the proprietor and manager respectively of the Ramkrishna Ramnath Bidi Factory at Kamptee. Both have been convicted under S. 9 of the Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Act, 1930, read with S. 5(3) and under rule 10 read with rule 4 of the Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Rules, 1930, for not paying maternity benefit to a female employee in their factory, and for failing to maintain a muster-roll of female employees. Both the applicants have been fined Rs. 200 and Rs. 25 respectively on each of the above counts, or in default, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks each. 2. The merits of the convictions have not been challenged before me, nor was the evidence referred to. But Mr. M. N. Phadke on behalf of the applicants has raised several contentions. 3. In order to show the nature of these contentions it is necessary to state certain facts. The Central Provinces and Berar Maternity Benefit Act is Act VI of 1930. Though publ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Bai Navajbai N. Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR793(Bom)
K.T. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is Bai Navajbai N. Gamadia. The assessment year is 1952-53, the previous year being the financial year 1951-52. A re-assessment was made by initiating assessment proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal in connection with the re-assessment for the assessment year 1952-53 was heard along with the assessee's two other appeals being Income-tax Appeals Nos. 6113 and 6114 of 1956-57 in connection with re-assessment for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. In all these three appeals, a common contention was raised before the Tribunal in regard to the validity of the initiation of the action taken under section 34. 2. The facts giving rise to the reference before us briefly are as follows : In December, 1940, the assessee made an oral trust in respect of securities of the face value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The object o...
F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom427; (1959)61BOMLR393; ILR1959Bom1342
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question arises for our determination on this reference under Section 66(2). The assessee Messrs. F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and three others formed the Cement Agencies Ltd. a company which was appointed the Managing Agents of the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. is a public company and was incorporated in 1936 and in the same year the Cement Agencies Ltd. were appointed its managing Agents. There were three other principal share-holders along with F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. in the Cement Agencies Ltd. In order to look after the day to day management of the parent company, the four principal share-holders appointed four persons to act as Managing Directors of Cement Agencies ltd. These persons were to devote all their time and attention to the business and management of Associated Cement Companies ltd. The remuneration of these Management Directors was, however, not to be paid by Cement Agencies Ltd. but by the four principal ...
Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR578; [1959]35ITR748(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. This reference under section 66(I), made at the instance of the assessees, one of whom is Bhor Industries Ltd., Bombay, and giver others who are shareholders, raises certain interesting questions. The assessment years so far as the company is concerned are 1947-48 and 1948-49. The assessment year in respect of the shareholders is 1949-50. The Bhor Industries Ltd. was at all material times a private company limited by shares and incorporated in the erstwhile Indian State of Bhor. Its registered officer was situate at Bhor and it carried on business of dyeing, printing and bleaching cloth, proofing etc. For both the years 1956 and 1947 it was held to be 'non-resident' in the then British India. It will be convenient to use the expression 'British India' for taxable territories in our judgment. Holding that the company was non-resident in British India in either of the two years, the Income-tax Officer had to determine its total income and its total world income. The gene...
H.S. CaptaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR84(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J. 1. A very short question arises for determination on this reference under section 66(1). The assessee worked as a managing director of the Cement Agencies Ltd., for many years in these circumstances. The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., was incorporated in 1936. Four groups of businessmen were interested in forming that company as also the Cement Agencies Ltd. which was appointed as the managing agents f the Associated Cement Companies Ltd. The four parties have been briefly described in the record as Killicks, Tatas, Khataus and F. E. Dinshaw Ltd. Clauses 4 and 5 of the agreement between the four groups and the Cement Agencies Ltd. are as under : 'Clause 4 : The articles of Cement Agencies Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the articles') shall provide that there shall be not less than four and not more than eight directors of the company and so long as Killicks, Tatas, Khataus and F. E. Dinshaw Limited shall hold not less than 20 shares in the capital of the company t...
Mahesh Anantrai Pattani and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom454; (1959)61BOMLR386; ILR1959Bom1350; [1959]35ITR734(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. In this Reference under Section 66(1), the principal question that arises for our determination relates to the ambit and scope of Section 7(1) and Explanation 2 to the same prior to the amendment of the section by the Finance Act, 1955, and the question arises in the context of a payment of Rupees five lacs made as a gift by the employer, the Maharaja of Bhavnagar, to the assessee who had been his Chief Dewan 'in consideration of ..... having rendered loyal and meritorious services.' The section, relevant parts of which we shall presently set out, as is well-established, was couched and also after it amendment in 1955 remains couched in the broadest possible terms. So stringent and embracing has been the rule that even a purely voluntary payment of the nature of a gift or prize or reward when given by a quondam employer to his employee has been regarded as falling within the very wide reach of the section if the object or consideration which moved the employer in makin...
Radhakant Jagannath Prasad Vs. V.K. Johri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1961Bom5
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of notice dated April 2nd, 1957 issued in pursuance of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act and for reliefs preventing the Respondents from proceeding with re-assessment in pursuance of that notice. 2. The main grounds on which the Petitioner has placed reliance are contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (g) of paragraph 18 of the petition. The contentions of the Petitioner all converge into the argument that the Income-tax officer could not have reasonably and honestly believed that theincome of the Petitioner for the relevant year had escaped assessment by reason of non-disclosure of material facts and should not have issued the notice. Under the circumstances the facts in this petition have to be approached so as to find the facts which were at the date of the notice present before the Income-tax Officer who issued the notice. The facts which were then present before the Income-tax Officer a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. New Digvijaysinhji TIn Facto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1958
Reported in: [1959]37ITR136(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J. 1. In this reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, everything has been said that could possibly have been said on behalf of the Revenue. The assessee is a registered firm of two partners, Vithaldas Dhanjibhai and his son Harjivandas Vithaldas, carrying on business at Jamnagar in Saurashtra. The relevant assessment year is 1952-53, the accounting year being S.Y. 2007 ending on 30th October, 1951. A writing was executed on 2nd February, 1946, by Vithaldas, the father, in which he declared his intention in writing in order to allay the fears of his son that he might re-marry. He stated in that writing that out of his 1/2 share in the profits he would give 1/4th share to the wife of his son and another 1/4th share to Manu, his grandson, meaning thereby that he would keep to himself 1/2 of his 8 annas share in the profits of the partnership. The account of the partners at the end of S.Y. 2003 showed this. To the credit of the two partners ...