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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. New Digvijaysinhji TIn Facto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR72(Bom)
S. T. DESAI, J. - 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 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom421; (1959)61BOMLR380; ILR1959Bom1368
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of Section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which come before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, under Section 66(1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1-7-1948 in the firm name of 'Coral and Co.' There was another concern -- The Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21-7-1949. Owing ti devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of foam rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral and Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral and Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The payment was not made in cash but was by allott...
Sushila Mahendra Nanavati Vs. Mahendra Manital Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR431
Acts/Rules/Orders: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 12(1), 12(2) and 23; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 8, Rule 5; Indian Evidence Act - Section 58Cases Referred: Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas, AIR 1915 PC 2, 42 Ind App 103; John Over v. Muriel A.I. Over, AIR 1925 Bom 231, 27 Bom LR 251; Robinson v. Robinson and lane, (1858) 1 Sw and Tr 362, 27 LJ Mat 91; Moudaunt v. Moncreiffe, (1874) LR 2 Sc and Div 374, 30 LT 649; Gaskill v. Gaskill, 1921-PD 425, 90 LJP 339; Clark v. Clark, 1939-2 ALL ER 59, 1939-P 228; Ginesi v. Ginesi, 1948-1 ALL ER 373, 1948- P 179; Fairman v. Fairman, 1949-1 ALL ER 938, 1949 P 341; Gowar v. Gowar, 1950-1 ALL ER 804, 66 TLR 717; Bater v. Bater, 1950-2 ALL ER 458, 1951-P 35; Preston Jones v. Preston Jones, 1951 A.C. 391, 1951-1 ALL ER 124; Galler v. Galler, 1954-1 ALL ER 536, 1954-P 252FACTS(1) The parties (petitioner Mahendra and respondent Sushila) were betrothed to each other in June or July 1945 and the marriage between the two took place on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. the New Digvijaysinghji TIn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom556; (1959)61BOMLR566; ILR1959Bom1359
S.T. Desai, J.1. In this reference made at he 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 remarry. 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 grand-son, meaning thereby that he would keep to himself only 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 st...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR662(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting question of construction of section 15C of the Income-tax Act arises for our determination on this reference, which comes before us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, under section 66 (1). The facts may be briefly stated. A partnership firm consisting of three partners started doing business of manufacturing shoes from 1st July, 1948, in the firm name of 'Coral & Co.' There was another concern - The Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. which was a limited liability company registered on 21st July, 1949. Owing to devaluation of currency, this latter company had difficulties in carrying on its business of them rubber. It came to the notice of this company, which is the assessee company before us, that the firm of Coral & Co. wanted to sell its business. The assessee company took over all the assets of the business of Coral & Co. including its goodwill for the consideration of Rs. 1,50,000. The payment was not made in cash but was by a...
The State of Bombay Vs. Shastri Yagna Purushadasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR700
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded.] It was not contested before the trial Court after remand that the temples in suit were public religious institutions. The only question that was agitated was whether the temples could be regarded as Hindu temples and it was submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that they were not, as these temples were meant exclusively for the followers of the Swaminarayan creed who, according to plaintiffs, did not profess the Hindu religion. The learned trial Judge held, in view of the definite finding of his predecessor before remand that the congregation of Satsang constituted a section of the Hindu community, that it was not open to the plaintiffs to contend before him that the followers of the Swaminarayan sect were not a section of the Hindu community. As regards the nature of the temples, after considering exhaustively the evidence on the record, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Swaminarayan temple at Ahmedabad...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR25(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J. 1. This reference raises a question of some difficulty and importance and the income in dispute relates to managing agency commission. In the matter out of which it arises there was a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member constituting the Tribunal and on a reference to the President the decision was in favour of the assessee. The three judgments turned a good deal on the effect of a decision of this court. The arguments before us also have revolved round that decision almost as a spindle and it will be necessary for us to ascertain the ratio decidendi of that case. Of this more hereafter. 2. The assessee, in this reference under section 66(1) made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, is the firm of Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. The assessment year is 1948-49 and the previous year ended on 31st March, 1948, During that previous year the assessee firm consisted of three partners and its business consisted of acting as ...