Mumbai Court September 1958 Judgments
Executors and Trustees of Cawasji Jehangir and ors. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom404; (1959)61BOMLR373; ILR1959Bom1376
S.T. Desai, J. 1. These six references arise out of assessments made on the six assessees who are shareholders of Messrs. Cawasji Jehangir and Co. Ltd. The assessment year is 1948-49. An order was made under Section 23A (1) in the matter of M/s. Cawasji Jehangir and Co. Ltd.- whom we shall refer to as the Company' - by the InCome-tax Officer in respect of the previous year, which was 1946. The total income of the company was determined at Rs. 20,63,016/. What the company had done was that out of this amount it had taken a sum of Rs. 7,86,900/- directly to the general Reserves and not to the profit and loss account and no part of the same was distributed as dividend. The dividend same was distributed as dividend. The dividend declared amounted to Rs. 4,34,768/- This was less then 60 per cent. of the assessable income of the company for that previous year as reduced by the amounts of income-tax and super-tax payable by the company in respect of the same. In making the order of assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Executors and Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir (First Baronet) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR537(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J.1. These six references arose out of assessments made on the six assessees who are shareholders of Messrs. Cawasji Jehangir & Co. Ltd. The assessment year is 1948-49. An order was made under section 23A (1) in the matter of M/s. Cawasji Jehangir and Co. Ltd. - whom we shall refer to as 'the company' - by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the previous year, which was 1946. The total income of the company was determine at Rs. 20,63,016. What the company had done was that out of this amount it had taken a sum of Rs. 7,86,900 directly to the general reserves and not to the profit and loss account and no part of the same was distributed as dividend. The dividend declared amounted to Rs. 4,34,768. This was less than 60% of the assessable income of the company for that previous year as reduced by the amounts of income-tax and super-tax payable by the company in respect of the same. In making the order of assessment on the company the Income-tax Officer determined the undistri...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal B. Daftari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: [1959]36ITR18(Bom)
S.T. Desai, J. 1. This reference arises out of an assessment order made by the Department against a partner in the firm of Bombay Salt Dealers' Syndicate, where the contention of the assessee partners was that the share of profits which he received as a partner was not his income, but was income which he was bound to share with other persons under an agreement of the nature of a sub-partnership. 2. One Bhiwandiwalla and some other persons including the assessee entered into a partnership and carried on business in salt under the name and style of Bombay Salt Dealers' Syndicate. The agreement of partnership was in writing and was dated 6th October 1947. There were 16 partners and the partners between them contributed the capital of the firm which was Rs. 3,45,000, of which the contribution of the assessee was Rs. 25,000. The partners were to bear and share the losses and profits respectively in the firm in proportion to the capital contribution made by them. The share of the assessee ca...
Tag this Judgment!Balirambhau Dajibabhau Vs. Chaturbhuj Bisanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR698
Kotval, J.1. This second appeal gives rise to a short but interesting question as to whether a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership and for partnership accounts amounts to a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951).2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 124-A of 1948. The suit was a suit for dissolution of partnership between the plaintiff and the two defendants. The plaintiff also claimed the usual decree for rendition of accounts. As a result of the preliminary decree, however, it was the appellant-plaintiff who was found liable to render account.3. The preliminary decree was passed on March 18, 1950. Thereafter, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, came into force as from April 1, 1951. Next, proceedings for making the preliminary decree final were taken a...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsibai Mangumal Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1344
K.K. Desai, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts as above, proceeded.] The sole contention on which the petitioners based their case regarding the invalidity of the requisition order appears in para. 8A of the petition. The petitioners have not pressed before me other grounds as appearing in the petition. Paragraph 8(a) runs as follows:The portion of Flat No. 4 sought to be requisitioned is not 'land' within the meaning of Section 4(1) and Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. Section 5 of the said Act does not empower the Government of Bombay to requisition only a part of flat which is neither let nor intended to be let.2. In. connection with this contention of the petitioners the relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act are as follows:Section 4(1): 'land' includes...buildings....Section 4(2): 'landlord' means any person who is, for the time being, receiving, or entitled to receive, rent in respect of any premises...and further includes in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Dhanji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom506; (1959)61BOMLR187; ILR1959Bom1385; [1959]35ITR467(Bom)
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Two questions arise on this reference. There are hardly any matters under the Income-tax Act which have not been considered by some High Court or other. The first question that we have to consider however has not been judicially considered at all and there fore we must decide it on first impression by construing the section and on principle.2. The question is concerned with an amoutn of Rs. 410 which was included in the total income of Manilal Dhanji, the assessee. This amount he received admittedly as a trustee, but the beneficiary is his minor daughter Chandrika, and the contention of the Department was that the case fell under Section 16(3((b). Now, the scheme of the trust deed is that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was set aside by the assessee and it was provided that the interest on that amount should be accumulated and should be added to the corpus and Chandrika, the daughter, was to receive the income from the corpus increased by the addition of interest when she attai...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Anklesaria and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR532(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The answer that we must give to the question submitted to us by the Tribunal is covered directly by a decision of this court in Ranchhoddas Karsondas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and also in Harakchand Makanji & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. A few facts may be stated. The assessee is a firm and on the 17th March, 1952, it made a return for the assessment year 1947-48 declaring a loss of Rs. 74,140. It is common ground that no notice under section 22 (2) had been served upon this assessee by the Income-tax Officer. When the Income-tax Officer received this return he issued a notice under section 23 (2) and the return of notice was fixed or the 24th March, 1952. On the 24th March, 1952, the Commissioner gave permission to the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under section 34, but in fact no notice under section 34 was issued. The Income-tax Officer once more issued a notice under section 23 (2) on the 20th February, 1953, and the order made by the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Narandas Mathuradas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Sou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom355; (1959)61BOMLR361; ILR1959Bom1391
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised on this reference is the difficult and highly debatable one of whether a particular expenditure constitutes a revenue or a capital expenditure. The facts are very few. The assessee firm carries on business in several commodities and in the course of their business they submitted tenders to the B.B. and C.I. Railway and undertook to supply certain commodities. In accordance with the term of the tender it had to deposit a certain amount as security for properly carrying out the contract. In the particular case with which we are concerned, the assessee could not carry out the contract, with the result that the amount of Rs. 4,419 deposited in respect of that particular tender was forfeited, and the assessee claimed this as a trading loss. The Tribunal has taken the view that this was a capital loss and therefore no deduction was permissible. We have not the advantage of any reason given by the Tribunal as to whey it has come to this conclusion. 2. Now, i...
Tag this Judgment!Narandas Mathuradas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Sou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR461(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised on this reference is the difficult and highly debatable one of whether a particular expenditure constitutes a revenue or a capital expenditure. The facts are very few. The assessee firm carries on business in several commodities and in the course of their business they submitted tenders to the B. B & C. I. railway and undertook to supply certain commodities. In accordance with the term of the tender it had to deposit a certain amount as security for properly carrying out the contract. In the particular case with which we are concerned, the assessee could not carry out the contract, with the result that the amount of Rs. 4,419 deposited in respect of that particular under was forfeited, and the assessee claimed this as a trading loss. The Tribunal has taken the view that this was a capital loss and therefore no deduction was permissible. We have not the advantage of any reason given by the Tribunal as to why it has come to this conclusion. 2. Now, it h...
Tag this Judgment!Manvi Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1958
Reported in: [1960]39ITR173(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This is one of those references where the Income-tax Department has taken much too technical a view of the income-tax law. The question that arises is with regard to the registration of a firm, and the brief facts are that there was a Hindu undivided family consisting of S. A. Manvi, the father, and S. S. Manvi and C. S. Manvi, the sons. The joint Hindu family continued up to March 31, 1945, and it was disrupted on April 1, 1945. Then the father and the two sons entered into a contractual partnership. S. S. Manvi, the elder of the two sons, died on March 18, 1947, and it appears that the partnership was continued, the widow of S. S. Manvi stepping into the shoes of her deceased husband and representing the interest of her three minor sons. The partnership deed was executed on April 8, 1948. On the strength of this partnership deed the partnership was registered for the assessment years 1946-47, 1947-48, and 1948-49. In 1949-50, the Income-tax Officer refused to register ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »