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.
C.P. Pictures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Nag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1181(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The assessee in this reference is a private limited company, which was carrying on the business of exhibiting motion pictures in its own cinema house known as 'Bharat Talkies'. On the 14th May, 1953, the assessee executed a lease agreement with one Shri Solao for a term of five years with effect from 1st May, 1953. Under this agreement, the premises known as Bharat Talkies were leased to the lessee for the purpose of exhibiting motion pictures, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000. The premises included the out-houses, restaurants, cycle-stands, pan-thelas, furniture, fixtures, machineries and goods with which the cinema house was fully equipped, which were described in Schedules A to D annexed to the document. The stipulated rent of Rs. 2,000 was stated as the total of the following rents : Rs. 500 for property desired in Schedule A (cinema theatre). Rs. 500 for property descried in Schedule B (projection and equipment). Rs. 500 for property described in Schedule C (furn...
Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: [1965]55ITR329(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On application by the assessee under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Tribunal drew up a statement of case and has referred the following question of law to this court : 'Whether depreciation is allowable on the original cost of the various components of the plant and machinery and other assets of the company as acquired and used prior to July 1, 1953 ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1955-56, the relevant accounting year being ending 31st March, 1955, and the question arises thus : The assessee-company was incorporated on 15th June, 1949, as a private limited company. Later it became a public limited company in the year 1949. On its incorporation it started a factory forthwith in the former Dharampur State for manufacturing leather cloth and coated fabrics from cloth, coarse and medium, P. V. C. resin, plasticisers, pigments etc. Before its incorporation the promoters of the company for a period of seven years from the commencement of its worki...
The Star Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. the State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR147; [1962]13STC102(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On an application by the dealers under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act (III of 1953) the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, drew up a statement of the case, and has referred to us the following question of law : 'Whether the plant sold by the applicants (dealers) to the Kolaba Land and Mill Co., Ltd., is covered by item No. 69 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are briefly these : The dealers Messrs Star Trading Co. (Private) Ltd., deal in articles of mill, gin stores and textile machinery. During the period of assessment, they sold a cooling plant for Rs. 20,000 to the Kolaba Land and Mill Co. Ltd. They have been assessed to sales tax on the said sale at the rate of one anna per rupee under item No. 69 of Schedule B of the Act of 1953. Item No. 69 of Schedule B is in the following terms :- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 'Srl. Description Rate of Rate of Rate of No. of goods. sales ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Hazarimal Nagji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1168(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the following two questions : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially in permitting the assessee respondent to raise the fresh ground at the Tribunal stage, viz., the 'previous year' for income from an undisclosed source could only be the financial year and as such assessable in the assessment year 1948-49 and not in 1949-50 and 2. Whether the refusal by the Tribunal to give a direction under the provisions of section 34(3) of the Act was valid ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in cloth. In the assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1949-50, corresponding to the accounting year of Samvat year 2004, extending from 13th November, 1947, to 1st November, 1948, the Income-tax Officer found cash credits in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay, City Ii Vs. Homi Mehta and Sons Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1135(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We are here concerned with the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49, the accounting years being the calendar years 1946 and 1947. The facts in relation to the cases of assessments of both these years are identical, the only difference being the difference in amounts. The question involved also is identical. It would, therefore, be sufficient to give the figures of one year and we propose to give the figures for the assessment year 1947-48 in order to appreciate the contentions raised. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially not interested within the meaning of the Explanation to section 23A(1) of the Act. The company has its head office in Bombay and a branch office at Billimora, a place in the then State of Baroda. The total income of the company for the year 1947-48 amounted to Rs. 18,77,245. This sum included the income of the...
The Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay Vs. Maneklal A. Meht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR107
Datar, J.1. The respondent Maneklal A. Mehta is a landlord owning nine Chawls on the Bombay Agra Road at Ghatkopar, Greater Bombay. It seems that these Chawls are let out to several tenants and the landlord recovers rent from them. These nine Chawls bear different municipal ward and street numbers and are assessable to '' property taxes'' under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.2. The taxes payable by the respondent in respect of his nine Chawls for the period between April 1, 1955, and September P, 1955, were assessed on the basis of the rateable .values which had been determined by the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.3. Under Section 163, the respondent made a complaint against the amounts of rateable value as severally fixed by the Commissioner on the nine Chawls. His complaint was, however, disallowed by the Commissioner on September 14, 1955.4. Thereafter, under Section 217, ...
K. Shankar Narayan Vs. S.S. Thakur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom260; (1962)64BOMLR135; [1962(4)FLR294]; (1962)ILLJ464Bom
Mody, J.(1) This is a petition for an appropriate writ or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 18th February 1961, dismissing the petitioner's application passed by the first responder's who is the appropriate authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner is a workman and employee of the second respondents who are an engineering company. The petitioner is employed in the factory of the second respondents, the second respondents being a public limited company. The working hours of the petitioner as also of the other employees of the second respondent working in the factory of the second respondents are governed by the Indian Factories Act, 1948, Under the Factories Act the ordinary working hours at all relevant times were nine hours per day and forty-eight hours per week. The petitioner and the other employees of the second respondents being dissatisfied with the rates of wages and dearness allowance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›