Mumbai Court June 1959 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Lever Brothers (India) L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: [1959]37ITR140(Bom)
Shah, J.1. In Income-tax Reference No. 39 of 1958 we had occasion to consider whether motor-cars and bi-cycles were plant 'installed' within the meaning of section 10(2) (vib) of the Income-tax Act so as to make the price paid for them admissible for development rebate, and we were of the view that motor-cars and bi-cycles were plant installed within meaning of clause (vib) of section 10, sub-section (2), of the Act read in the light of the definition given in section 10, sub-section (5). In this reference, the question which falls to be determined is whether the price paid for motor-cars, motor-lorries and office appliances is admissible for development rebate under section 10(2) (vib) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Our judgment in Income-tax Reference No. 39 of 1958 will govern this case in so far as it relates to motor-cars and motor-lorries. It is true in the definition of the expression 'plant' given in section 10(5) of the Act office appliances are not included. But under clause (vib)...
Sidisha Ibrahimsha (Bidi Merchant) and Ten ors. Vs. their Workmen (Bid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ390Bom
Acts/Rules/Orders: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 - Section 4; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2AWARD1. The dispute about bonus for Samvat year 2012 raised by the bidi workers or bidi rollers employed by eleven bidi merchants of Jamnagar is referred by order No. AJB. 87(1) 58, dated 12 January, 1959, for adjudication to this tribunal. All these eleven merchants are doing business in a small way. Only six of them were doing before 1956 business to a considerable extent but after the Shops and Establishments Act was applied to the City of Jamnagar, these six merchants who were doing business jointly in two names have split up their business and are thereafter carrying on separately. It appears that before 1956 Sidisha, Haidersha and Hasansha were carrying on business jointly in the name of Haidersha Ibrahimsha. Similarly, Ladhabhai, Gokuldas and Damjibhai were carrying on business jointly in the name of Ladhabhai Premjibhai. Even now, the business in the name of Haidersha is th...
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1338
Shah, J.(1) The assessees are a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing cloth. In the year of account 1954-55 the assesses purchased certain motor-cars and bicyles for use in their business and claimed in the year of assessment 1955-56 development rebate under S. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The income-tax authorities allowed the assessees the normal depreciation ont he motor-cars and the bicycles under S. 10(2) (vi). The Tribunal also allowed to the assessees development rebate in respect of the motor-cars and bicycles, holding that the motor-cars and bicycles, were 'plant' within the maning of S. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act and that the same had been 'installed' after 31-3-1954 and had been wholly used for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessees.(2) In this reference, Mr. Joshi forthe Deptcontends that even thoug within the definition of the expression 'plant' in S. 10(5) of the Income-tax Act vechicles may be included, for the purpose ...
Hasmukahlal M. Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, North Ah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1339
Shah, J. (1) The assessee derived income from house property and a share in a partnership and form interpet and dividends. On 8-10-1938, the assessee purchased the leasehold interest in Survey No. 45 of village Paladi from one Bhudarbhai who had obtained a lease from the original owner of the land on 26-9-1938. Under the lease Bhudarbhai had a right to purchase the land, and that right was also assigned to be assessee. On 14-9-1945, the assessee purchased a half share in the reversion from the orginal owner, and on 5-5-1946 he entered into an agreement with a housing society for sale of his rights in the land and obtained Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money. Under the lease Bhudarbhai had a right to purchase the land, and that right was also assigned to the assessee. On 14-09-1945, the assessee purchased a half share in the reversion from the original owner, and on 5-5-1946 he entered into an agreement with a housing society for sale of his rights in the land and obtained Rs.60,000/- as earn...
Hasmukhlal M. Parikh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom224; [1959]37ITR359(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessee derived income from house property and a share in partnership and from interest and dividends. On 8th October, 1938, the assessee purchased the leasehold interest in Survey No. 45 of village Paladi from one Bhudarbhai who had obtained a lease from the original owner of the land on 26th September, 1938. Under the lease Bhudarbhai had a right to purchase the land, and that right was also assigned to the assessee. On 14th September, 1945, the assessee purchased a half share in the reversion from the original owner, and on 5th May, 1946, he entered into an agreement with a housing society for sale of his rights in the land and obtained Rs. 60,000 as earnest money. Under another conveyance, dated 24th September, 1947, the assessee purchased from the original owner of the land his right of reversion in the remaining half share. On 1st October, 1947, the society executed in favour of the assessee a lease in respect of the entire land, and in 1950, the assessee executed...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom218; [1959]36ITR580(Bom)
Shah, J. 1. This assesses are a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing cloth. In the year of account 1954-55 the assesses purchased certain motor-cars and bicycles for use in their business and claimed in the year of assessment 1955-56 development rebate under section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax authorities allowed the assesses the normal depreciation on the motor-cars and the bicycles under section 10(2)(vi). The Tribunal also allowed to the assesses development rebate in respect of the motor-cars and bicycles holding that the motor-cars and bicycles were 'plant' within the meaning of section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act and that the same had been 'installed' after 31st March, 1954, and had been wholly used for the purpose of the business carried on by the assesses. 2. In this reference, Mr. Joshi for the Department contends that even though within the definition of the expression 'plant' in section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, vehicles may b...
Central Potteries Ltd., Nagpur Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1959
Reported in: (1960)62BOMLR187; [1960]11STC399(Bom)
Kotval, J. 1. The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Civil Reference No. 37 of 1957 which, it was agreed by counsel for the parties, should be heard along with the first appeal. The first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the First Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge, Class I, Nagpur, dismissing the appellant-plaintiff's suit, Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1952. 2. The appellant-company filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,650-11-9 paid as sale tax. The company also claimed other reliefs, such as a declaration that it was not liable to pay sales tax and the granting of an injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from proceeding to demand, assessee or receive sales tax from the plaintiff. The original defendants in the suit were the then State of Madhya Pradesh through the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur. Pending the appeal, however, the plaintiff applied for amendment and added the Collect...
Popatlal Bhikamchand Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: [1959]36ITR577(Bom)
Shah, J.(1) The assesee was the holder of 350 shares of the shree Ram Mills Ltd., On 2812-1946, the assessee gifted these shares to his ninor son Virendra. Under S.16(3)(a)(iv)of the Income - Tax Act, the dividend income fromthese 350 shares was liable to be included in computing the total income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. Onm 9.8.1947, the directors of the Shree Ram Mills,. Ltd, resolved to recommend the issue of bonus shares by increasing the capital of the company and a certain number of bonus shares were issued in the name of the assesse's minor son Virendra. There was a further increase in the capital of the company on 30.12.1947, and certain additional bonus shares were issued in his name. VIRENDRA. The minor son of the assessee, was thus alloted 744 bonus shares for is original holding of 350 shares. The Income Tax Officer held that the 350 shares originally transferred by the assessee and the 744 bonus shares were 'assets trnasferred y the assessee, and comp...
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom137; (1959)61BOMLR1333; [1959]37ITR342(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court : '(i) Whether the sum of Rs. 15,27,000 paid by the assessee company for the leasehold interest in several manganese mines was capital expenditure and as such not an allowable deduction (ii) Whether even a proportionate amount of the total sum paid for the leasehold manganese mines, i.e., Rs. 98,280 per annum, was not deductible in determining the profits of the business (iii) Whether the legal and other expenses incurred for the leases of the manganese mines were not admissible deductions under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts which give rise to the reference may be briefly stated. The assessee company was originally a private limited company having its registered office at Nagpur. It was converted into a public limited company on 17th March, 1952 R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Mining Syndicate, hereinafter referred to as the Mining Syndicate, were lessees from the Go...
Popatlal Bhikamchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Bom223; (1959)61BOMLR1316; [1959]38ITR577(Bom)
Shah, J.1. The assessee was the holder of 350 shares of the Shree Ram Mills Ltd. On 28th December, 1946, the assessee gifted these shares to his minor son Virendra. Under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, the dividend income from these 350 shares was liable to be included in computing the total income of the assessee for the purpose of assessment. On 9th August, 1947, the directors of the Shree Ram Mills Ltd., resolved to recommend the issue of bonus shares by increasing the capital of the company and a certain number of bonus shares were issued in the name of the assessee's minor son Virendra. There was a further increase in the capital of the company on 30th December, 1947, and certain additional bonus shares were issued in his name. Virendra, the minor son of the assessee, was thus allotted 744 bonus shares for his original holding of 350 shares. The Income-tax Officer held that the 350 shares originally transferred by the assessee and the 744 bonus shares were 'assets tra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›