Mumbai Court June 1959 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. National Electrical Industries ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1380
Shah, J.(1) The assessment years in this reference are 1952-53 and 1953-54. The assessee company had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,15,220, in the assessment year 1950-51 and this loss was carried forward to the next assessment year. The company was also unable fully to avail of the depreciation allowance in 1950-51 and 1951-52. The assessee was a newly established industrial undertaking and was entitled to exemption from payment of tax to the extent prescribed by S. 15-C of the Income-tax Act. In the year of account 1951-52 the assessee made a profit of Rs. 3,65,000 odd, but after making allowance for the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years and also the losses carried forward from the previous years, there remained no taxable income and accordingly no demand for tax was made for the assessment year of 1952-53. In assessing the total income, the Income-tax Officer did not give the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under Section 15C of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Hirachand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR76(Bom)
Shah, J.1. On September 18, 1946, the assessee entered into an agreement with one Kesarbai and others to purchase a piece of land together with a house sanding thereon, at Walkeshwar Road, Bombay, for Rs. 4 lakhs. Under the agreement of sale, the transaction was to be completed by the purchaser within 3 months. After having entered into the agreement, the assessee was unwilling to complete the transaction because the house which he had agreed to purchase was popularly described as vagmukhi and it was a common superstition that a vagmukhi house brings ill-luck to the owner. On April 11, 1947, the assessee procured two other persons who agreed to purchase the property and executed a contract to sell the house to those persons for Rs. 3,45,000. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed by Kesarbai and others of the property to which the assessee was a confirming party, whereunder Rs. 3,45,000 were paid by the purchasers and the balance was paid by the assessee as a confirming party. In the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Baimaniben
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR80(Bom)
Shah, J.1. A business in cloth was conducted in the name of Hiralal Mathuradas in partnership at Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay. Of that partnership Hiralal and his nephew Jayantilal were partners with equal shares in profits and loss. Hiralal died on August 14, 1953, intestate and leaving him surviving his widow Bai Mani, but no children. On August 15, 1953, a partnership deed was executed under which certain terms of partnership between Jayantilal and Bai Maniben, widow of Hiralal, were recorded and under which the business conducted in the name of Hiralal Mathuradas was to be continued, and under that agreement of partnership the business was conducted. In the assessment year 1953-54, when Hiralal was alive, in conducting the business a loss of Rs. 1,07,420 odd was incurred. In the year 1954-55 also in conducting the business loss was incurred. For the first time, assessment was made on the widow Bai Mani in the assessment year 1954-55. As the partnership had suffered a loss in that yea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. National Electrical Indu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom342; [1959]37ITR131(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessment years in this reference are 1952-53 and 1953-54. The asses see company had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,15,220 in the assessment year 1950-51 and this loss was carried forward to the next assessment year. The company was also unable fully to avail of the depreciation allowance in 1950-51 and 1951-52. The assessee was a newly established industrial undertaking and was entitled to exemption from payment of tax to the extent prescribed by section 15C of the Income-tax Act. In the year of account 1951-52 the assessee made a profit of Rs. 3,65,000 odd, but after making allowance for the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years and also the possess carried forward from the previous years, there remained no taxable income and accordingly no demand for tax was made for the assessment year of 1952-53. In assessing the total income the Income-tax Officer did not give the benefit of exemption from payment of tax under section 15C of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. T...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Vijaya Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom380; (1959)61BOMLR1421; [1960]38ITR392(Bom)
Shah, J.1. This reference arises from proceedings for assessment of income-tax in respect of assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. Four brothers Tulsidas Kilachand, Ramdas Kilachand, Ambalal Kilachand and Chinubhai Kilachand-whom I will hereafter refer to collectively as 'Kilachand brothers' - entered into a partnership agreement for carrying on business-the nature whereof is not clear on the record in the name and style of Dharma Vijaya Agency. There was no formal deed recording the terms of this partnership agreement. By an agreement, dated September 28, 1950, the firm was appointed as from September 1, 1950, the principal agents of the New Great Insurance Co., of India Ltd. The appointment was made by a letter setting out certain terms and conditions addressed by the insurance company to the firm, and the terms and conditions were accepted by the firm. By the first condition of the letter the firm was to act as the principal agent on behalf of the insurance company...
Tag this Judgment!East Asiatic Company (India) (Private) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ383Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10(2) and 39 AWARD1. This industrial dispute between the East Asiatic Company (India) (Private), Ltd., Bombay, and the workmen employed under it has been referred to me as industrial tribunal under Sub-section (2) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, empowered under S. 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as per notification of the Labour and Social Welfare Department, No. IDA. 3557, dated 8 May, 1957. The dispute relates to a single demand which is as follows : 'Sri H. A. Daruwalla be reinstated with full compensation and continuity of service.' 2. The company both in its written statement and at the time of hearing has taken a preliminary objection which goes to the very root of the matter and I shall therefore dispose it first. That objection as set out in the written statement is as follows : 'With reference to the demand generall...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gaya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1509; 1960CriLJ893
ORDER(1) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, West Berar Division, Akola, recommending that a charge under section 3 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 (No. 104 of 1956), framed against the four opponents Gaya, Saru, Subhadra and Bani by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Akola, in Criminal Case No. 82 of 1958 should be quashed. The prosecution case was that on the outskirts of Akola town near the temple of Kala Maroti there is a house of prostitution being run by one Janabai, accused No. 1, who is the mistress of one Brahmanand. On 20-8-1958 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, City Division, Akola, decided to send a customer into this house. He was Sheikh Kasam. He was given five currency notes of Re. 1/- each in the presence of panchas and ordered to go to the brothel and have sexual intercourse with one of the girls in that brothel on payment. It was the prosecution case that accordingly Sheikh Kasam went to the brothel, talked to Janabai, accused No....
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Agrawala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR67(Bom)
Shah, J.1. By an agreement dated the of October 15, 1949, the assessee was appointed general manager of the Orissa Textile Mills Ltd. By that agreement, the appointment of the assessee was to be in force for a period of five years in the first instance with option of renewal for a further period of two years. The assessee was to be paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 2,100 and a monthly allowance of Rs. 900 for entertainments, maintenance of car etc. Besides this remuneration he was to be paid commission at 3% on the net profits of the company and was to be provided with a furnished bungalow, four servants, free use of the company's transport and separate allowance for entertainment on behalf of the company and free medical aid. The assessee undertook to manage the affairs of the mills efficiently and on a profit earning basis and if he 'failed to establish the mills on a sound basis within 12 months from the date' of his joining, i.e., April 1, 1950, the company reserved its rights to ...
Tag this Judgment!Oukarmal Meghraj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1959
Reported in: [1960]38ITR569(Bom)
Shah, J.(1) This Reference substantially deals with two assessments. One part of the reference concerns the assessment year 1944-45 in which 11 assessees are interested and the other part concerns the assessment year 1943-44 in which the assessee Onkarmal Meghraj is interested. We are at this stage primarily concerned with the assessment of the following 11 assessees:1. Narayandas Pokermal. 2. Govindram (s/o No. 1). 3. Bhagwandas (s/o. No. 1). 4. Vasudeo (s/o. No. 1). 5. Meghraj Pokerma, 6. Onkarmal Meghraj (s/o No. 5). 7. Banarisilal (s/o No. 5). 8. Beniprasad (s/o No. 5). 9. Hanumandas Sewakram 10. Kedarnath (s/o. No. 9). 11. Durgaprasad (s/o. No. 9). (2) Sixteen persons entered on 19-5-1930 into an agreement of partnership to conduct a business in partnership in the name of Messrs. Narayandas Kedarnath. Amongst these sixteen persons there were three sets of persons who constituted Hindu United Families: Naravandas Pokermal and his three sons Govindram, Bhagwandas and Vasudeo - cons...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarmal Meghraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom163; (1959)61BOMLR1373; [1960]38ITR369(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The reference substantially deals with two assessments. One part of the reference concerns the assessment year 1944-45 in which 11 assesses are interested and the other part concerns the assessment year 1943-44d in which the assessee Onkarmal Meghraj is interested. We ar at this stage primarily concerned with the assessment of the following II assessees : 1. Narayandas Pokermal. 2. Govindram (son of No. 1). 3. Bhagwandas (son of No. 1). 4. Vasudeo (son of No. 1). 5. Meghraj Pokermal. 6. Onkarmal Meghraj (son of No. 5). 7. Banarasilal (son of No. 5). 8. Beniprasad (son of No. 5). 9. Hanumandas Sewakram. 10.Kedarnath (son of No. 9). 11.Durgaprasad (son of No. 9). 2. Sixteen persons entered entered on May 19, 1930, into an agreement of partnership to conduct a business in partnership in the name of Messrs. Narayandas Kedarnath. Amongst these sixteen persons there were three sets of persons who constituted Hindu untied families. Narayandas Pokermal and his three sons - Govindram...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »