Mumbai Court October 1961 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. E. Francescanto
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR402(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1949-50, the account year ending 31st March, 1949. The assessee was appoint as manager as from June 1, 1948, by one S. P. Gallini, proprietor of Rayon Yarns Import Company. We would hereinafter refer to Mr. Gallini as the employer. The terms agreed to between the assessee and the employer were evidenced by a document dated 30th of May, 1948. In the said agreement, the employer had agreed to pay to the assessee a salary of Rs. 1,600 per month as also commission of half percent. on all the sales of the employer effected after June 1, 1948. The relevant year of account of the employer was the year ending 31st January, 1949. Up to 31st January, 1949, the commission found payable to the assessee amounted to Rs. 2,45,557. In the assessment of the employer for the assessment year 1949-50, for the account year ending 31st January, 1949, the employer, inter ...
F.E. Hardcastle and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR394(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company and we are concerned with the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1955-56 ending with 31st March, 1956. The assessee was holding managing agencies of (1) Society General de Surveillance S. A. (foreign company doing business in the taxable territories) and of (2) General Superintendence Co. (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the principals). The managing agency agreements of these two companies held by the assessee were terminated on December 1, 1952, and the terms agreed upon between the parties were incorporated in two instruments of date 29th September, 1953. We would deal with the relevant terms of these agreements at a later stage. It is sufficient at this stage to say that compensation amounting to Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 48,000 respectively in half-yearly instalments or Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 3,000 were payable to the assessee subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in the agree...
Municipal Committee Vs. the Savatram Ramprasad Mills Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR287
Abhyankar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Municipal Committee, Akola. The appellant was originally the defendant in the two suits separately brought by each of the respondents. Respondent No. 1, the Sawatram Ramprasad Mills is a textile mill at Akola. It had filed civil suit No. 29B of 1955 and the relief claimed was for refund of a sum of Rs. 1,440-13-0 paid by the mill to the appellant-committee by way of licence fee for the year 1952-53. The mill also claimed a declaration that the byelaws framed by the municipal committee under Section 179(1)(1) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act charging a fee at the rate of 0-3-0 per one thousand gallons of water from the Morna river taken by the mill through its pipe line were ultra vires of the committee. The plaintiff succeeded and the committee filed civil appeal No. 12B of 1956 in the District Court against the decision of the trial Court.2. Respondent No. 2, the Oudh Sugar Mills, Bombay, are the owners of the hydrogenating plant goi...
T.C. Kapur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1199(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. The question referred to us under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act is : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 52,000 is income liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee jointed the service of the Bombay Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited as a manager, on April 1, 1944, and the terms of service were reduced to the form of a document of date April 6, 1944. The terms, inter alia, were : (a) Salary of Rs. 2,500 per month rising to Rs. 4,000 per month by annual increment of Rs. 200 per month, the last increase being Rs. 100 per month. (b) The appointment will be liable to be terminated on 12 months' notice on either side. (c) The assessee will be entitled to the benefit of the society's provident fund and leave rules in force from time to time. 3. During 1952, serious differences of opinion arose between the assessee and the board of directors of the employer company. The differences ultimately ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. M.P. Kolhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1268(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the assessee applied to the income-tax authorities for registration of the partnership firm consisting of himself and one Namdeo. The instrument of partnership on the basis of which registration was asked, was dated the 19th July, 1953, which was beyond the accounting period for the assessment year 1953-54, but within the accounting period for the assessment year 1954-55. the Income-tax Officer refused registration because he was not satisfied that the firm was a genuine firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the assessee took the same view and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no material on the basis of which the genuineness of the firm could be questioned and the assessee firm, therefore, was a genuine firm. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and directed that the assessee firm may be registered...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. Md. Khalid Faquih and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR383(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question referred to us is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was rightly registration under section 26A of the Act of the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 ?' 2. The assessee is partnership firm, carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of slat at Bhiwandi in Thana District, under the name and style of Messrs. Mohamed Khalid Faquih & Co. We are here concerned with the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, the relevant accounting period for these years being January 1, 1954, to October 26, 1954, and Samvat year 2011, i.e., from October 27, 1954, to Diwali of 1955. The partnership that commenced on January 1, 1954, is evidenced by a deed, annexure 'A', to the case. The deed purports to be a deed of partnership between ten persons. Two of them, namely, Party No. 5 and party No. 10 to the deed, were at that time ...
Shankarrao Mohite and ors. Vs. Burjor D. Engineer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom198; (1962)64BOMLR130; ILR1961Bom63
Patel, J.(1) This application arises out of the unfortunate floods in the City of Poona due to the bursting of Panshet and Khadakwasla Dams. The complainant is one Burjor D. Engineer, who filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Poona against the four petitioners, the first of whom is the Commissioner, Poona Division, the second is Collector and District Magistrate, Poona, third is a District Superintendent of Police, Pona, and the fourth is the Commissioner, Poona City Municipal Corporation. The complaint is a very long document and extends over several pages but the sum and substance of it is that in law certain duties were cast on all these officers for the safety of populace but in wanton disregard of these rules of duty they did not perform those functions which they were expected to perform. For example, in paragraph 16 the complainant says that'by reasons of the exalted position which all the accused occupied they were responsible for the safety of...
Shivrajpur Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1205(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made in pursuance of the requisition of this court. The assessee is a limited liability company and the business of the company is of raising manganese ore. We are here concerned with the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56, the relevant accounting years ending with 30th of November, 1952, 30th of November, 1953, and 30th of November, 1954. The method of valuing the closing stock adopted by the assessee was to value the stock at cost price. Bonus paid to the employees had at no time been included by the assessee company in the cost price of the manganese ore. It is an admitted position that in all these years the cost price of the closing stock was lower than the market price. In the assessment year 1953-54 the assessee company paid Rs. 1,14,810 by way of bonus to its employees relating to the previous year. Similarly, it paid Rs. 2,51,710 in the assessment ye...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Bombay Mutual Life Assu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR367(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The questions which are referred to this court on this reference under section 66(1) are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee company is entitled to claim as a revenue deduction amounts of Rs. 35,073, Rs. 34,536 and Rs. 34,153, being the amounts transferred to the building depreciation fund in the three respective years under reference under any of the rules in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income from tax-free securities or income which has borne tax aggregating to Rs. 1,73,318 should be excluded from the surplus for the purpose of allowing half of that amount under rule 3(a) of the Rules in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act ?' 3. The facts relating to the first question may be shortly stated as follows : The assessee company is a mutual concern doing the business of life insurance. The actuarial valuation of the company was made at the end of the years...
H.H. Vijayakunverba Maharani of Morvi and ors. Vs. S. Narayanan and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom254; (1962)64BOMLR213; [1962]45ITR223(Bom)
Tambe, J. (1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 (Act 29 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the 1st respondent. The petitioners further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from taking any further step or proceedings under the Act against the petitioners in respect of the expenditure incurred by the late Maharaja of Morvi. The three petitioners before us are the Executors appointed by the late Maharaja in his. Will of 31st October 1953 and a codicil dated 9th February 1956. The Will had been probated by the petitioners on 28th August 1958. After the filing of this petition the second petitioner died and Mr. Palkhiwala, counsel for the petitioners...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »