Mumbai Court March 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.
Rogers and Co., Bombay Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom150; (1958)60BOMLR866; ILR1954Bom1202
M.C. Chagla, C.J. 1. Messers, Rogers and Co. carried on the business of making aerated waters as a firm till the 6th of August 1949 and the partners of the firm were 11 in number. On the 6th of August 1949 this firm converted itself into a private limited company. The shareholders of this company were the same as the partners of the firm and the shares allotted to the shareholders were in the same proportion as the shares held by them in the partnership; the slight difference was due to the shares being rounded off to a specific number. The written-down value of the block assets of Messers. Rogers and Co., in their books was Rs. 3,81,848/-. These assets were transferred to the limited company at the original cost price of Rs. 4,85,354/- and the Department contended that the limited company in the assessment year 1950-51 was liable to pay tax on the difference between Rs. 4,85,354/- and Rs. 3,81,848/- by reason of the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.2. Turning...
Krishnaji Pandharinath Vs. Anusayabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom475; (1958)60BOMLR1083; ILR1959Bom94
1. This is an appeal form an order in an execution proceeding. The appellant Krishnaji Bhalwankar is a purchaser of a house standing on, C.T.S. No. 985, of Pandharpur from one Sidram Damodar Gulbile by sale deed dated 17-7-1952. Anusayabai the 1st respondent to this appeal, filed suit No. 174 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pandharpur against her husband Sidram Damodar Gulbile for a decree for maintenance. By her plaint Anusayabai claimed charge for future maintenance and for arrears of maintenance on the property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, i.e., house standing on C.T.S. No. 985 of Pandharpur. This suit was filed on 14-2-1950. On 15-7-1952 the suit was dismissed for non-payment of process fee. On 17-7-1952 Sidram sold the property for Rs. 8,000/- to the appellant Krishnaji Bhalwankar. On 29-7-1952 Anasuyabai applied for restoration of the suit and the suit was ordered to be restored. On 20-9-1952 a decree expert was passed against the defendant...
Calico Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR265(Bom)
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)(iii). 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 reasons of the use of the capital must be use 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 sect...
Chhotalal Devchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR351(Bom)
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, it must be administered technically, irrespective of the justice it may do. We realise that the Income-tax Act is a technical Act and questions of equity cannot be incorporated in construing the provisions of the law. But 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 or revenue and it saves the assessee from a palpable injustice. 2. Now, the facts are that the assessee firm sought registration and it was denied registrati...
Rogers and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR336(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. Messrs. Rogers & Co. carried on the business of making aerated waters as a firm till the 6th of August, 1949, and the partners of the firm were 11 in number. On the 6th of August, 1949, this firm converted itself into a private limited company. The shareholders of this company were the same as the partners of the firm and the shares allotted to the shareholders were in the same proportion as the shares held by them in the partnership; the slight difference was due to the shares being rounded off to a specific number. The written-down value of the block assets of Messrs. Rogers & Co. in their books was Rs. 3,81,848. These assets were transferred to the limited company at the original cost price of Rs. 4,85,354 and the Department contended that the limited company in the assessment year 1950-51 was liable to pay tax on the difference between Rs. 4,85,354 and Rs. 3,81,848 by reason of the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Turning to section 10(2...
G.L. Mishra Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1158
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the dismissal of his suit for two declarations and for damages. The relevant facts are as follows : Leases of certain plots of land in Dhantoli covering in all an area of about two acres were granted by the State to one Krishnarao Phatak in the year 1910. Those leases were renewed on April 13, 1940, in favour of the heirs of Krishnarao Phatak who died before the expiry of the period of the lease. One of the plots comprised in these leases was transferred by the heirs of the original lessee to the plaintiff on January 17, 1942. After purchasing the plot, he constructed a house thereon. There is a compound wall to this house. According to the State, while constructing the eastern side of the compound wall the appellant has encroached upon the Government land to the extent of 310 sq. ft. Proceedings were, therefore, commenced against him for the removal of the encroachment and an order requiring him to remove the encroachment was pa...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, Bombay Vs. Walchand Diamond J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom148; (1958)60BOMLR851; ILR1958Bom1188
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether an income arising from a certain trust is exempt from tax on the ground that it falls within Section 4 (3) (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The trust in question was constituted on the Diamond Jubilee of Mr. Walchand Hirachand, a well-known industrialist of Bombay, and the trust-deed which is dated 31st May, 1943 sets out the object s of the trust. The recitals clearly state how the trust came into existence and the origin of the trust was the celebration of the 61st Birthday of the Settlor and a committee of the employees of the Settlor presented to him a sum of Rs. 4,11,111/- and the recital further points out that the Settlor was anxious to strengthen the hands of the organisation which controlled the various companies in which the Settlor had an interest and therefore, he thought it necessary to maintain a uniform control over the management and working of the Premier Construction Co., Ltd., by centralising ...
Dadu Raghu Patil and ors. Vs. Tukaram Ranaba Dhere and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom221; (1958)60BOMLR715; ILR1958Bom952
Shah, J.1. The following genealogy shows the relationship between plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and Original defendants Nos. 10 to 15 who were subsequently transposed as plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 11. JIWAJI DHERE (d) | ----------------------------------------------- | | | | Ranba Laxman Subhana Nana (d) (d) (d) (d) | | | | --------------- | Dadu ----------- | | | (p.3) | | Tukaram Sakharam| Ganu Jam (p.1) (p.2) | (p.4) (p.5) ------------------------------------------------------ | | | Yesba (d) Balu (d) Raghu (d) | | | ------------- ----------------- -------------- | | | | | | Shiva Nana Govinda Shamu Hindu Sadi (d.10) (d.11) (d.12) (d.14) (d.14) (d.15)The dispute in this litigation relates to R.S. No. 48 of Ekundi which belonged to Jivaji who is shown as the common ancestor in the genealogy. Jivaji mortgaged the land with possession with Bhiwa Bayaji Patil on 4-6-1873 for Rs. 100. Suit No. 522 of 1930 was filed for redemption of the mortgage by the descendants of Jivaji in the Senior Jahagir-Mu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Walchand Diamond Jubile ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR228(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The question that arises in this reference is whether an income arising from a certain trust is exempt from tax on the ground that it falls within section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The trust in question was constituted on the Diamond Jubilee of Mr. Walchand Hirachand, a well-known industrialist of Bombay, and the trust deed which is dated 31st May, 1943, sets out the objects of the trust. The recitals clearly state how the trust came into existence, and the origin of the trust was the celebration of the 61st birthday of the settlor and a committee of the employees of the settlor presented to him a sum of Rs. 4,11,111 and the recital further points out that the settlor was anxious to strengthen the hands of the organisation which controlled the various companied in which the settlor had an interest and, therefore, he thought it necessary to maintain a uniform control over the management and working of the Premier Construction Co. Ltd., by centralising the vot...
Parelkar, Gore and Parpia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR312(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessees were the fortunate recipients of a prize of Rs. 10,000 from the All-India Medical Institute at Delhi and they got this prize under the following circumstances. The Medical Institute wanted to construct a Medical Centre at Delhi for providing teaching and research facilities for all branches of medical science and the building was estimated to cost Rs. 178 lakhs. The Institute invited applications from architects practicing in India who had certain qualifications, and after considering the plans submitted by various architects the Institute was to give three prizes in order of merit - the first prize was Rs. 50,000, the second prize was Rs. 25,000 and the third prize was Rs. 10,000. The architect getting the first prize was to get the work and the prize of Rs. 50,000, was to be considered as part of his fees for the work. Now, the assessees practise as architects and having the requisite qualifications they also submitted their plans and they, as we pointed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »