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.
Chimanbhai Lalbhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR259(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is one of those cases where the Department seems to think that common sense is out of place in taxing cases. The question which we are asked to decide is whether certain amounts gifted by the assessee to his son and daughter constitute valid gifts. 2. Now the undisputed facts are that the assessee made a gift of Rs. 5 lakhs to his son Sudhirbhai, and a gift of Rs. 2 lakhs to his daughter Pratimaben, on the 17th of November, 1952. On this date he made the gifts by making the necessary entries in his own books of account. But he went further on the 8th of November, 1953, and what he did on that date was this. He had an account with the firm of Lalbhai Dalpatbhai. This is a joint family firm which carries on the business of bankers. His son and daughter also had accounts with this firm and he instructed this firm as his bankers to debit him with the sum of Rs. 5,14,831-15-0 and Rs. 2,00,773 and credit Sudhirbhai with Rs. 5,14,831 and Pratimaben with Rs. 2,00,773. The ...
Mela Kabhai Vs. Motibhai Kahandas Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1071
Tarkunde, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of an agricultural land at Amla, a village in the territory of the old Baroda State. The land belonged originally to one Mohansingh. On May 12, 1932, Mohansingh passed a possessory mortgage of this land in favour of one Becharbhai Ranchhodbhai. The mortgage was to be redeemed after 15 years. On November 27, 1942, Mohansingh sold the equity of redemption of the land to the present opponent No. 1, Motibhai. Motibhai redeemed the mortgage on March 16, 1956, and thus became the full owner of the land. Now, the father of the petitioner was an old tenant of this land. On the father's death in 1951 the petitioner continued to cultivate the land as a tenant. In 1952, however, the name of opponent No. 2, Gordhandas, was shown in the Record of Rights as a tenant. It appears that this entry was false, and that opponent No. 2 Gordhandas was merely a cook of opponent No. 1. In 1956 the petitioner filed an application before the Mamlatdar against o...
Madanmohan and ors. Vs. Hari Anandilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom269; (1958)60BOMLR829; ILR1959Bom256
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellants under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant facts are as follows: The appellants instituted a suit against two persons Moreshwar and his brother Madhao for the recovery of money. That suit was civil suit No. 16/32. Ultimately, a consent decree was passed thereon 2-12-1932. In accordance with the terms of that decree, the amount was payable in instalments and for the recovery of that amount, a charge was created over certain property belonging to the two brothers, including a house situate in Circle No. 9/11 in Nagpur. This decree was, eventually registered on 7-8-1933.2. One Gangabai had obtained a money decree against Moreshwar and Madhao in civil suit No. 1478/34. In execution of that decree, she attached the house aforesaid and put it to sale through pondent for Rs. 400/- on 6.10.1943 and the respondent was placed in possession of the house on 25-2-1944.3. During this period, the appell...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Robert J. Sas, Belgium
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom281; (1958)60BOMLR1043; ILR1958Bom1184; [1958]34ITR222(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The three assessees before us were shareholders in A.C.E.C. Private (India) Ltd. On the 29th of March, 1954, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under Section 23A with regard to the profits of the company for the year 1949-50 and issued a notice under Section 34, and this notice was served on the assessees on the 1st of April, 1954. The contention of the assessees was that the notice was beyond time and, therefore, the assessment could not be made upon the assessees. The Tribunal has upheld the contention of the assessees and the Commissioner has come to this Court on this reference.2. The first question as submitted to us is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the Income-tax Officer to initiate action under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act in order to tax the deemed income distributed by virtue of the order under Section 23A of the Act? Now, this question was considered in the case of Navinchandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner o...
Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom272; (1958)60BOMLR987; ILR1959Bom262
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a Bank in liquidation and it went into liquidation on 21-4-1947. The Liquidator made a return of the income of the Bank for the assessment year 1948-49, and in this assessment he claimed bad debts amounting to Rs. 38,35,689/-. He also claimed as a business expense an amount of Rs. 10,15,000/- which represented a defalcation committed by the Bank's Secretary in respect of a particular transaction and a sum of Rs. 98,892/- which also represented a defalcation also committed by the Bank's Secretary in respect of another transaction. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Liquidator was not entitled to these deductions.2. Now, turning to the question with regard to bad debts, an interesting question has been raised by Mr. Kolah. Admittedly these debts were not written off by the Liquidator in the books of the Bank. Mr. Kolah says that after liquidation, the Bank was not conducting its normal business as a Bank and all that the Liquidator was doing was c...
Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR557(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a bank in liquidation and it went into liquidation on the 21st of April, 1957. The liquidator made a return of the income of the bank for the assessment year 1948-49, and in this assessment he claimed bad debts amounting to Rs. 38,35,689. He also claimed as a business expense an amount Rs. 10,15,000 which represented a defalcation committed by the bank's secretary in respect of a particular transaction and a sum of Rs. 98,892 which is also represented a defalcation also committed by the bank's secretary in respect of another transaction. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the liquiator was not entiled to these deduction. 2. Now, turning to the question with regard to bad debts, an interesting question has been raised by Mr. Kolah, Admittedly, these debts were not written off by the liquidator in the books of the bank. Mr. Kolah says that after liquidation, the bank was not conducting its normal business as a bank and all that the liquidator was doi...
Associated Industries Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (Associated Industries Kamg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ138Bom
1. In both these references the parties are the same. In Adjudication No. 24 of 1956 the demand is for bonus for the year 1954, and in Adjudication No. 89 of 1956 the demand is for bonus for the year 1955. As the same points arise for decision in both these adjudications, common evidence was heard, and I am disposing of both these references by a common award. 2. The factory at Bhavnagar appears to have been constructed in 1933-34, though no definite evidence was produced before me on this point. The manager has given evidence and he has stated that the buildings were constructed and the plant was installed in 1933 or thereabout. Thereafter, the factory was working for about two or three years, and was then closed as it was not possible for the factory to market the finished goods outside Saurashtra because of the customs cordon at Viramgam. According to the manager, the factory was not working for several years, and ultimately it was rented by the company in 1943. The company appears ...
Badrinarayan Gangadhar and anr. Vs. Nagarmal Hanumandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom241; (1958)60BOMLR1022; ILR1959Bom77
1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the dismissal of their suit for possession of a house and certain fields. The following genealogical tree will be of assistance in appreciating the contentions of the parties: LACHIRAM | --------------------------------------- | | Daulatram Jagram | | ------------------ -------------------- | | | | | Sitaram Sampatram Bhagwan Kunanibal Sheobal | | | --------------------- Nathu Badrinaraya | | | | (plff.in) Hanuman Ramgopal Ramnarayan Baijnath (plff.in C.S. 15.A/47 (deft.2) (deft.3) (deft.4) C.S. 62-A/47)The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the Court below instituted two suits for possession of the aforesaid house and fields against Sampatram, the respondent No. 1, and the other four respondents.2. It is common ground that this property was the separate property of Bhagwan, the brother of the mother of Badrinarayan, appellant no. 1, and of Kunanibai, the grand-mother of the appellant no. 2, Bajinath. After the death of Bhagwan, this proper...
Shankar Sadu KamaThe Vs. Chunilal Rupchand Dakale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom294; (1958)60BOMLR901; ILR1958Bom1177
Dixit, J.1. On 14-9-1935, the petitioner executed in favour of the first opponent a document purporting to be a deed of sale. The petitioner is a resident of Poona, while the first Opponent resides at Saswad in the Poona District. After the passing of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, a Board was constituted on 1-2-1947 to enable a debtor or his creditor to make an application for adjustment of the debts. The time before which the application was to be made was 1-8-1947. Therefore, an application has to be made on or before 31-7-1947. On 15th July, 1947 the petitioner made an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 14-9-1935 for the consideration of Rs. 800 was intended to operate as a mortgage. On 13th April, 1948, this application was returned to the petitioner to be presented to the proper Court and as the petitioner resided in Poona, he presented the application on 14-4-1948 in the Court of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Balwantrai Jethalal Vaidya a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom298; (1958)60BOMLR983; ILR1958Bom1374; [1958]34ITR187(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. It is sufficient to state only those facts which are necessary for the disposal of this reference. The assessees are trustees under a scheme framed by the District Court, Ahmedabad, and as such trustees they carry on the business of a dispensary and the business made profits in the relevant assessment years. As trustees they also are possessed of certain property which fetches income and they are also the registered owners of shares which bring in dividend income. The question that arises is whether it is obligatory upon the Department to tax them with regard to these different kinds of income under Sections 9, 10 and 12 read with Section 41 of the Income-tax Act or it is open to the Department to contend that at its option it could tax the trustees under Sections 9, 10 and 12 without regard to the provisions of S. 41.2. Now, in order to answer this question, we must first look at the scheme of the Act. The charging section, as has been so often pointed out, is Section 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »