Mumbai Court March 1958 Judgments
The State of Bombay Vs. Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom1; (1958)60BOMLR834; 1959CriLJ28; ILR1959Bom919
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. An application to dispense with the Jury in a case pending before the Session Court, Greater Bombay, was made to a Division Bench consisting of my brothers Datar and Miabhoy and that Bench felt some difficulty as to whether on a true construction of S. 269(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has the power to dispense with the trial by Jury and has referred this question to a larger bench; and the question referred to us is whether the High Court can, in the circumstances stated in sub-s. (4) of S. 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by order direct a case pending trial before the Court of Session for Greater Bombay to be tried by the Judge himself without a jury. 2. Now, in order to understand and appreciate the difficulty that has arisen, it is necessary to look at the various amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure made both by the Parliament and the State Legislature. The scheme of the Code before it was amended by Act XXXII of 1938, which is a...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Desai Vs. V. Ramamurthy and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom89; (1958)60BOMLR1048
Chagla, C.J.1. This petition raises a question as to the proper construction of Section 44 of the Income-tax Act. The question comes to be raised under the following circumstances. The petitioner was a partner with three others in the firm of E. Loeffler and Co. which was constituted on 10-6-1947. Among the three other partners was a man by the name of Iyer. This firm was dissolved on 11-9-1950 and the deed of dissolution provided for the business of the firm being continued by Iyer and under that deed Iyer succeeded to the firm and carried on the business of that firm. The firm was a registered firm and it was assessed for the assessment year 1949-50 and the shares of the profits of the four partners were allocated to each one of them under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and each of the partners was assessed to tax on his share of the profits. The petitioner and the other three partners paid the tax which they were liable to pay in respect of their respective assessments. Iyer f...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Desai Vs. V. Ramamurthy, I Income-tax Officer, A-iii Ward, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR409(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This petition raises a question as to the proper construction of section 44 of the Income-tax Act. The question comes to be raised under the following circumstances. The petitioner was a partners with there others in the firm of E. Loeffler & Co. which was constituted on the 10th of June, 1947. Among the three other partners was man by the name of Iyer. This firm was dissolved on the 11th Of September, 1950, and the deed of dissolution provided for the business of the firm and carried on the business of that firm. The firm was a registered firm an it was assessed for the assessment year 1949-50 and the shares of the profits of the four partners were allocated to each one of them under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and each of the partners was assessed to tax on his share of the profits. The petitioner and the other three partners paid the tax which they were liable to pay in respect of their respective assessment. Iyer failed to do so and the Income-tax Act and t...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Sheikh Hasanoo Vs. S. Natesa Mudliar and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom267; (1959)61BOMLR1127
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the dismissal of his claim for the recovery of Rs. 1367-8-0 alleged to be due to him from the respondent. 2. It is common ground that the appellant is a fruit seller carrying on business at Narkhed. The respondent carries on business of a broker in Madras. The appellant sent 485 baskets of oranges to madras sometime in the year 1949 for being sold through the respondent. The latter submitted an account to the appellant on 22-3-1949 showing that the oranges had been disposed of for a sum of Rs. 1585/-, and that after deducting the usual charges, a sum of Rs. 1417-8-6 was found due to the appellant. A draft dated 31-3-1949 drawn by the Exchange Bank of India and Africa, Madras Branch, on its Branch at Nagpur for the aforesaid amount was sent by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant tried to cash the draft, three weeks or so after he received the draft, the Bank having gone in liquidation in the meanwhile, he could not cash it. He there...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Sheikh Hasanoo Vs. S. Natesa Mudaliar and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: [1959]29CompCas41(Bom)
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the dismissal of his claim for the recovery of Rs. 1,367-8-0 alleged to be due to him from the respondent.2. It is common ground that the appellant is a fruit seller carrying on business at Narkhed. The respondent carries on business of a broker in Madras. The appellant sent 485 baskets of oranges to Madras sometime in the year 1949 for being sold through the respondent. The latter submitted an account to the appellant on March 22, 1949, showing that the oranges had been disposed of for a sum of Rs. 1,585 and that after deducting the usual charges, a sum of Rs. 1,417-8-6 was found due to the appellant. A draft dated March 31, 1949, drawn by the Exchange Bank of India and Africa, Madras Branch, on its Branch at Nagpur for the aforesaid amount was sent by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant tried to cash the draft three weeks or so after he received the draft. The bank having gone in liquidation in the meanwhile, he coul...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana Vs. Jamnadas Gokuldas Patel an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1125
Shah, J.(1) (After stating facts and dealing with matters not material for reporting his Lordship proceeded): The next question, which falls to be determined, is whether the claiman's are entitled to compensation at the market rate prevailing on 28th May 1948, the date on which the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, or at the rate prevailing on 1st January 1948, and whether the claimants are entitled to the 15 per cent solatium in addition to the market value of the lands. By Bombay Act IV of 1948 the Bombay Legislature has amended section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Section 3 of Bombay Act IV of 1948 provides by the first sub-section:'Where during the continuance of this Act and land is required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894........ for the prupose of a housing scheme the said Act shall have effect in relation to such acquisition as if- (a) in clause (f) of section 3 after the words 'such provision' the words and brackets 'and a housin...
Tag this Judgment!H.A. Shah and Co., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom93; (1958)60BOMLR1046; ILR1958Bom1213
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee carries on the business of machinery manufacture on a fairly large scale, and the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 was passed by the Income-tax Officer added two sums of approximately Rs. 3 lacs and approximately Rs. 5,80,000/- to the income of the assessee on the ground that certain items of machinery had not been accounted for in the books and that the valuation with regard to the cost of building had not been properly entered in the books of the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The A.A.C. held in favour of the assessee that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in adding these two sums. But on looking to the accounts, he found that two items of sales had not been accounted for. He therefore, came to the conclusion that the profits of the assessee could not be properly computed from the account kept by the assessee, and exercised his powers under the proviso to Section 13 and compute...
Tag this Judgment!H.A. Shah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR401(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee carries on the business of machinery manufacture on a fairly large scale, and the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1947-48 was passed by the Income-tax officer on the 29th of March, 1952. The Income-tax Officer added two sums of approximately Rs. 3 lakhs. and approximately Rs. 5,80,000 to the income of the assessee on the ground that certain items of machinery had not been accounted for in the books and that the valuation with regard to the cost of building had not been properly entered in the books of the assessee. The assessee appeals do the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held in favour of the assessee that the Income-tax officer was not justified in adding these two sums. But on looking at the accounts, he found that two items of sales had not been accounted for. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the profits of the assessee could not be properly computed from the account kept by the asses...
Tag this Judgment!The Calico Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom156; (1958)60BOMLR856; ILR1958Bom1207
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee firm carried on the business of bleaching, dyeing and printing cloth in a factory at Tardeo. In the year of account, which corresponds to assessment year 1952-53, the assessee firm borrowed money in order to extend its business. It purchased a plot of land and erected additional plant and machinery and on this borrowed capital it paid interest and claimed this interest as a permissible deduction under Section 10(2)(ii). The claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the plant and machinery were not used for the business in the year of account. The question that arises for our consideration is whether, in order to entitle an assessee to claim interest paid on borrowed capital, it is necessary that the asset which comes into existence by reason of the use of the capital must be used in the year of account.2. Before we look at the authorities, it would perhaps be best to turn to the section itself, and the deduction which is permissible under S...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Devchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom152; (1958)60BOMLR860; ILR1958Bom1194
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. This is not the first instance in which the Taxing Department has insisted on adherence to the letter of the law and overlooking the substance. But in this case it has excelled even itself. We are concerned with a question of registration and Mr. Joshi's contention is that Section 26A is a technical section, it must be construed technically, it must be administered technically, irrespective of the injustice it may do. We realise that the Income-tax Act is a technical Act and question of equity cannot be incorporated in construing the provisions of the law, But even the Income-tax Act must be construed according to some principles of commonsense. Even the Income-tax Act must be construed so that the Court, as far as it can possibly do so, construe a section in favour of the assessee and against the Department where in so construing it does not deprive the Department of revenue and it saves the assessee from a palpable injustice.2. Now the facts are that the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »