Mumbai Court September 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.
MauladIn Ayub Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom342; (1959)61BOMLR354; ILR1959Bom1395
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A rather important and interesting question arises on this reference, which has not been considered by any decision of this Court, although there is authority of the Calcutta High Court, Allahabad High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the question arises under the following circumstances.2. The assessee is a firm and the assessment year is 1951-52 the relevant accounting year being S.Y. 2006 ended on 9-11-1950. Now, on certain evidence which the Income-tax Officer took, he came to the conclusion that the assessee was maintaining a separate set of books which had not been produced before him and which recorded transactions which had not been entered in the account books that the assessee had produced. On that, he issued a notice under Section 22(4). The contention of the assessee was that he did not have two sets of books, that whatever books, he had been produced and therofre he could not comply with the notice. As the assessee failed to comply with the ...
The State Vs. Mahmadkhan Navrangkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom359; (1959)61BOMLR164; 1959CriLJ1053; ILR1959Bom875
Datar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No. 996 of 1957. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the present respondent Mahomedkhan Navarangkhan is a foreigner being a National of Pakistan. As such nation he obtained a Passport from the Government of Pakistan at Karachi on 9-6-1952 which was valid upto 9-6-1957. 3. On 3-7-1956 he applied for Visa for India to enable and authorise him to enter the Indian territory to see his father and other relatives in the State of Bombay. The High Commissioner for India in Pakistan granted him Visa of the Category 'C' being No. 49900 and dated 3-7-1956. It was stated in the Visa that it was valid for three months from the date of entry, which meant that the respondent in whose favour it was issued, was to remain in India for a period of three months from the date of his arrival on the Indian territory. The respondent entered I...
Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR890; (1959)IILLJ286Bom
Mudholkar, J. 1. This order will also govern Special Civil Application No. 214 of 1958. In these petitions the petitioners challenge the notification issued by the Government of Bombay in Labour and Social Welfare Department, dated 11 June, 1958, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. That notification runs thus : 'No. MWA. 1557-J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of S. 5 read with Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI of 1948), and after consulting the Advisory Board and in supesession of the former Government of Madhya Pradesh Labour Department notification No. 564-451-XXIII, dated 23 February, 1956, the Government of Bombay hereby revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the employment in any tobacco (including bidi-making) manufactory in the Vidharbha region of the State of Bombay as mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed and directed that this notification shall come into force with effect from 1 July 1958. Sch...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Afco Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR177(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. This references raises a very short question. The assessee is a private limited company which was incorporated on the 25th March, 1954, and the assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1955-56 and the relevant year of account is the year ending 31st March, 1955. On the 13th July, 1955, the assessee company declared a dividend of Rs. 11,712. The assessee company declared a further dividend of Rs. 5,612 within the time permissible to it under section 23A which brought the dividend declared to the statutory requirement of 60 per cent. of its income. The assessment of the company was made on the 30th January, 1956, and the company claimed a rebate of one anna per rupee on the undistributed balance of the profits as provided in clause (i) of the proviso to item B of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1955. This rebate was disallowed both by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but was allowed by the Tribunal...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. F.L. Smidth and Co. (Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR183(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee is a private company and the assessment year is 1949-50 and the accounting year is the current year 1948. Now, the total assessable income of this company was Rs. 1,20,566, and at the general meeting held on the 23rd of December, 1949, no dividend was declared. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer passed an order under section 23A and it is this order which was challenged by the assessee company and successfully challenged as far as the Tribunal was concerned. Now, in arriving at the assessable income of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer took into consideration a sum of Rs. 1,63,377, which were profits, according to the Department, earned by the assessee under section 42 (2) of the Income-tax Act and the contention of the assessee is that in deciding whether section 23A is applicable to this case and whether the Income-tax Officer has rightly exercised his power, this sum of Rs. 1,63,377 should be excluded in determining whether the profits of the company w...
indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR271(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises two questions, and the facts which have got to be stated in order to answer those two questions are these. The assessee company mainly carried on its business in Indore and it is an admitted fact that in the year 1948-49 it made a loss of Rs. 5,19,590. The assessee company was assessed to tax in that year in India. It is also not disputed that under the tax laws prevailing in Indore and which were applicable to the assessee company, this particular loss could not be carried forward. In the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 depreciation was allowed to this company in the sum of Rs. 2,00,705 and Rs. 3,37,025. These amounts could not be absorbed because the company had incurred losses or there were not sufficient profits to absorb this depreciation which was allowed. In the assessment year 1950-51 two claims were made by the company. One was with regard to this loss of Rs. 5,19,590 and the assessee company's contention was that it was entitled to set off this ...
Namdev Bhikha Vs. Ramnath Shivnarayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR351
Miabhoy J.1. This petition is filed under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The petition is by one Namdeo. He was the protected tenant of Survey No. 1, measuring 4 acres 33 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 10-4-0, situated in the village Easgaon. This Namdeo made an application on November 4, 1952, to the Deputy Collector for fixation of standard rent in respect of this land. This application was made under Section 17 of the Act. The application was decided by the Deputy Collector on September 8, 1954. The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, fixes the maximum rent in respect of agricultural lands. This is done by Section 11 of the Act. On the date on which the application was made by Namdeo, the section was as follows :-Therefore, on the date on which Namdeo made the application, the maximum rent, which was payable by a tenant to his landlord was 1/3rd or 1/4th according to the class of land in respect of which the tenancy existed. However, t...
Bhagwant Vinayak Vs. Radhakisan Gangabisan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Bom536; (1959)61BOMLR348; ILR1959Bom871
1. This appeal raises a short question relating to the interpretation of a preliminary decree which was passed in Suit No. 36 of 1940. That suit was brought by some sons against their father and his alienee. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the shares of the sons in the joint family properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 22-12-1941 inter alia, that decree directed that the sons shall obtain future mesne profits form the date of the suit till delivery of possession. The direction was given agaisnt the alienees of the father. The alienees were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They are now represented by a Receiver appointed in another litigation. The decree was assigned by the sons to one Radhakisan who is respondent No. 4. He filed a darkhast No. 1135 of 1943 for partition of the properties in accordance with the directions given in the preliminary decree. It is not disputed that he got on 10-9-1951 actual possession of the properties allotted to the shares of the s...
Tarasingh Ujagar Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1185; (1960)ILLJ174Bom
1. As regards the contention of the Union that the plaintiff held 'post connected with defence' and that the grievance of the plaintiff is not justiciable, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Arts. 310(1) and 311 of the Constitution which provide as follows :- '310. (1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President .....' '311. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against th...
D.A. Kelshikar Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1958
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1625; (1960)ILLJ66Bom
(1) The Plaintiff who was a Sub-Inspector of Police filed this suit inter alia for declaration that the order dated 5-4-1952 removing him from the police force of the State of Bombay is void and inoperative and that he continues to be a member of police force and for arrears of salry on that footing. (2) The main contention on which plaintiff prays for the aforesaid declation are contained in paragraphs 14(A) and 14(b) of the Plaint. The Plaintiff relies upon the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The Plaintiff case is that he has not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him s required under the Article and that the show cause notice tendered to him was not in conformity with the provisions of the Articles (3) The plaintiff contends that the Defendent did not give to the Plaintiff any opportunity of showing cause against the accuracy of the facts founds by the District Superintendent of Police in a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »