Mumbai Court February 1961 Judgments
Rasiklal Amritlal Doshi Vs. A. Nundy, Additional Income-tax Officer, S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR35(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ for quashing the notice of demand and the consequent recovery proceedings instituted on the basis of the said demand. 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Jamnagar and has been all along doing business at Jamnagar. On March 30, 1955, he was served with a notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1946-47 by the Income-tax Officer, B. ward, Jamnagar. Subsequently, in November, 1955, the case of the petitioner instituted on the said notice, which was served on him on March 30, 1955, was transferred by the Central Board of Revenue to the Additional Income-tax Officer, Section III (Central), Bombay, the first respondent herein. On or about January 27, 1956, the petitioner was informed of the said transfer and subsequently notices under sections 22(4) and 23(2) were issued on February 6, 1956, and served on the petitioner on February 9, 1956. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Serenabai Munchershaw Davierwalla Vs. M.B. Panse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR919
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner and her husband had created a trust in respect of certain properties, including several agricultural lands, by executing an indenture of trust on July 30, 1941. By the trust-deed, the petitioner's husband, the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and one Jamshed Mountwalla were appointed as the trustees. The petitioner's husband died in September 1956. Jamshed Mountwalla resigned as a trustee on January 1, 1958. The present trustees, therefore, are the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Clause 2 of the trust deed provides that after the death of the petitioner's husband, the trustees shall pay or allow the petitioner to receive and recover the income of the trust estate and to receive or retain the net income for her sole use arid benefit during her lifetime without any liability to account for the same. Clause 8 of the trust deed is in the following terms:-The First Settlor during his lifetime and after his death with the Written consent of his wife Shirinba...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Gaitonde Income-tax Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR249(Bom)
TAMBE, J. - There is very little merit in this application. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It appears that the petitioner-company was carrying on business of civil engineering. At the material time, its activities were not confined only to India, but were also spread over territories outside India, including Ceylon the former States of Kolhapur and Kapurthala. The petitioner was taxed in respect of its income in assessment years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 in Ceylon. The assessment was completed some time in November 1956. Prior to 1956, the petitioner had been assessed in India in respect of those years, and the income earned by it in Ceylon was also included in the tax levied on it in respect of those years. The petitioner, therefore, field and application before the Income-tax Officer Companies Circle the first respondent herein claiming relief against double taxation and praying that the amount due to it on this ground be re...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Shantabai Mathurdas Thakkar Vs. the Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR667
V.S. Desai, J.1. These are two revision applications under Section 5(2) of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, against the orders passed by the Taxing Officer relating to the. computation of the claims and the amounts of court-fees payable in respect of the claims in the two appeals to which the said orders relate.2. The Civil Revision Application No. 373 of 1960 relates to the First Appeal Stamp No. 10709 of 1959, the memorandum of which appeal was filed by the appellant on August 29, 1959. The suit out of which the said appeal arises was filed by the appellant on October 17, 1957, and the said suit was decided against her by the trial Court on June 17, 1959. The suit was for declarations that the two orders referred to in the plaint were illegal, void and of no effect and the plaintiff, therefore, continued to be in the service of the defendants and was entitled to all the benefits and emoluments including salary and allowance attached to the post held by the plaintiff including the occ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Fisheries (Private) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: [1961]41ITR763(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition under article 226 of the constitution is whether the income-tax authorities were entitled to set off the refund of Rs. 1,460-1-0 against the tax dues of Rs. 3,549-12-0, which had remained payable under the provisions of section 49E of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner is a private limited company was directed to the wound up by an order passed by this court on October 11, 1950, and a court liquidator was appointed as the official liquidator thereof with all powers under section 179 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, to be exercised by him under section 180 without sanction or intervention of the court save and except in case of sales of immovable property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner's assessment for the year 1948-49 was completed on December 8, 1950, and the petitioner was assessed to pay a tax of Rs. 8,737-15-0. Since, before this date the petitioner had gone into liquidation, the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniklal Tribhowandas Vs. V.R. Amin, First Income-tax Officer, C-11 W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR92(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the assessee. The respondent is the First Income-tax Officer, C-11 Ward, Bombay. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1952-53. By his order dated April 4, 1956, the respondent determined the petitioner's total income at Rs. 1,02,318. In determining that figure the respondent had deducted a sum of Rs. 22,185 which was estimated to be the share of the loss of the petitioner in a firm known as 'The Bombay Import and Export Agency' in expectation that the firm would in its assessment be treated as a registered firm. By a further order of rectification under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner's total income was determined at Rs. 1,00,830. Thereafter the assessment of the firm - Bombay Import and Export Agency - was completed. The said firm, however, was not treated as a registered firm and it was assessed to the total loss of Rs. 1,57,802 and the petitioner's share of lo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal C. Parekh Vs. V. Krishnamachari, Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1961
Reported in: [1961]41ITR757(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, at the material time, was an employee of the Ahmedabad Jaya Bharat Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mills'). Up to the year 1945-46 he was paid a salary of Rs. 400 per month. From the year 1945-46 his salary was raised to Rs. 1,500. The petitioner also happens to be the son of one of the directors of the mills, Shri Chimanlal B. Parekh, holding a substantial number of shares of the mills. The petitioner was also paid certain sums as dearness allowance and bonus during all these four years. We may take the figures of the year 1945-46 to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties. In the year 1945-46 the petitioner was paid Rs. 18,000 as salary, Rs. 789 as dearness allowance and Rs. 4,500 as bonus. The total amount paid to him during the year thus amounted to Rs. 23,289. In the assessment of the mills for the aforesaid four years, i.e., 1945-46 to 1948-49, which was subse...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Girdharlal Bajaj and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom130; (1961)63BOMLR743; ILR1961Bom902; (1962)IILLJ46Bom
Kotwal, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State and is directed against the judgment of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, III Court, Esplanade, Bombay, acquitting the first two respondents, Firdharlal Bajaj and Tulsiprasad Khaitan of offences under Section 420 of the India Companies Act 1956. The original complainant, Nariman Fakirji Bharucha, is the third respondent in this appeal.(2) The complainant, was employed sometime in 1941 as a Manager in New Pralhad Mills. The company commenced a provident Fund Scheme and appointed Trustees of the Provident Fund on the 1st April 1949. Thereafter, the New Pralhad Mills was sold to a company known as the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd., on 1st July 1951, and the latter Company were appointed their managing agents in 1952. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were the accused before the trial Court are the General Manager and the Chairman of the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that consequent upon the taking over of the N...
Tag this Judgment!Manalal Rikhbaji and ors. Vs. Mohanlal Harilal Rathi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom94; (1961)63BOMLR969
1. This is a suit to enforce a mortgage dated June 19, 1952. The mortgage is an English mortgage. 2. At the instance of the parties, I directed that the first issue as regards jurisdiction of this Court should be tried as preliminary issue. The relevant facts that need be noticed in this connection are as follows: The Plaintiffs who carry on business in Bombay as shroffs and commission agents in the firm name of Messrs. Rikhbaji Manalal and Co., were appointed shroffs and commission agents by the Defendants' firm of Messrs Laxminarayan Bankatlal and Co. to effect certain transactions in Bombay. Admittedly, Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are brothers. Their business is situate at Lasalgaon in Niphad Taluka in Nasik District. The Plaintiffs' case is that accounts of the previous transactions between the parties were settled and adjusted and at the foot of the accounts a sum of Rs. 25,000/-was found due as on June 15, 1952. The Defendants requested for a further loan of Rs. 10,000/- and ul...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Kreba and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1967Bom56; (1966)68BOMLR209; ILR1966Bom761
V.S. Desai, J.(1) This is an appeal from the order passed by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff's in suit No. 303 of 1960 in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court.(2) The Plaintiffs are the purchasers of a sulpur dioxide plant agreed to be sold to them by the defendants, 1, 2 and 3 who are foreign corporations. The plaintiffs have paid to the defendants 85 per cent of the price agreed for the sulpur dioxide plant and for the balance of the purchase price they have executed promissory notes in favour of defendants 1 to 3. These promissory notes have been 'backed' for the plaintiffs by the State Bank of India, which is the 4th defendant in the suit. The present suit of the plaintiffs is on the basis that the defendants have committed a breach of the contract and the plaintiffs have, therefore, been entitled to the reliefs, which they have claimed in the suit. These reliefs are for recovery of certain amounts from the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›