Mumbai Court March 1961 Judgments
Ramchandra Dhonde Datar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR22(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is an income-tax reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and raises a question under section 7(1), read with Explanation 2, of the Act as it stood before its amendment by the Finance Act of 1955. 2. The assessee had been a manager of the All India Reporter Ltd., for a long time. On March 23, 1943, an agreement was entered into between him and the All India Reporter Ltd., specifying the terms of service of the assessee. The preamble of this agreement stated that as the assessee had put in very valuable services in the company since its inception in promoting, building up its business and bringing it in repute which it was enjoying and was still continuing to serve the company, the agreement was being entered into in appreciation thereof. Clause (1) of the agreement provided that the employees would be paid a salary of 3 1/2% of the gross sales received by the company in the year or a sum of Rs. 12,000 whichever was greater from April 1, 1943. Under clau...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Parekh Wadilal Jiwanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR266(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'. We are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. The assessee is a partnership firm, doing business in jewellery. The partners are three brothers, Nandlal, Tarachand and Rajnikant, sons of one Bhimjibhai. These three partners along with eight other persons were doing business in Bombay, in the name and style 'Rajnikant Vithaldas and Company'. This firm had two branches of Nagpur also. In this firm, these three brothers had 2 annas share each, and the remaining eight persons had a 10 annas share. That partnership business was dissolved on October 31, 1949, and on its dissolution, the business in Nagpur was allotted to these three brothers. These three brothers then constituted a new firm with effect from November 1, 1949, and a deed of partnership was duly executed on March 19, 1950. The partnership constituted under this deed is the assessee before us. This deed re...
Tag this Judgment!Patil (M.P.) Vs. Khanna (D.R.) (General Manager, Central Railway) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1961
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ34Bom
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the constitution directing the respondents to post the petitioner in the compilation branch of the Central Railway at Bombay as a senior clerk in the grade of Rs. 80-220 on a pay of Rs. 192 per month or some other suitable post in the said branch and also to direct them to fix his seniority in the compilation branch in accordance with the terms of the option exercised by the petitioner in or about July, 1953. Respondent 1 is the present General Manager of the Central Railway Originally, respondent 1 was R. B. Lal, who was the General Manager of the Central Railway when the petition was filed, but in view of the occupant of that post having changed, D. R. Khanna has since been substituted in his place as respondent 1. Respondent 2 is the Union of India. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Central Railway whic...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Dhanwate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR253(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1947-48 the account year ending with March 31, 1947. At the material time the assessee was a partner in a firm styled as Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur. The other partners being his wife Parvatibai and six sons, out of whom one Yeshwantrao was a minor. He was admitted to the benefits of partnership. The share of each partner was two annas in a rupee. The firm was being treated as registered for purposes of income-tax since 1939. On November 26, 1947 the assessee submitted his return to the Income-tax Officer. As regards his share of profits in the registered firm he stated 'as per firm's case'. He further disclosed a certain income by way of interest and income from sources other than those mentioned in the form. In part (c) of disclosed that his minor son, Yeshwantrao Dhanawate, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In that column he also disclosed...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hasima Latifi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom227; (1961)63BOMLR940
ORDER(1) This is a petition for grant of a succession certificate. Dr. Alma Latifi died on the the 16th August 1959. He was a Shia Mahomedan. He left a will which is annexed as Ex. A to the petition. By that will he appointed the three petitioners as the executrix and executors. The petitioners have by this petition applied for the grant of the succession certificate in respect of the properties mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the petition. The properties consist of two particular debts due to the deceased. Probate in respect of the said will have not been granted nor has even been applied for.(2) It appears from the said Ex. A to the Petition that in paragraph 1 of the will the deceased has stated that his marriage with Hasima, being the first petitioner, was duly solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act 1954 on the 1st day of September 1958 and that because of that reason succession to his property is regulated by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Gulanchand Swarupchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom78; (1961)63BOMLR609; ILR1962Bom198
ORDER(1) This application arises out of a private complaint lodged by Opponent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be called the complainant) on 29-2-1960 against the four petitioners (who will hereafter be called the accused) under Section 406 read with Section 114, I. P. C. The complainant claims to be the sole trustee of Khudala Jain Deosthan Trust, which according to the complainant, is registered with the Charity Commissioner at Bombay under the Bombay Trusts Act. The office of the trust is situate in Bombay. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the Honorary Managers and constructive trustees of the Jain temples belonging to the trust situate at Phalna and Khudala in Rajasthan. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the paid clerks of the trust. The complainant alleged that the temples were old and required repairs and renovations and for that purpose, a sum aggregating Rs. 45,000/- and odd was sent to accused Nos. 1 and 2 from time to time as per their demands. The complainant also alleges that on enquiries he fo...
Tag this Judgment!The Central Provinces Syndicate (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR6(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is group of income-tax applications, requesting this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer to this court certain specified questions of law. In some of these applications, the aforesaid relief is claimed only under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, while in others, the said relief is also claimed in the alternative by an appropriate writ or direction under article 226 of the Constitution. All these applications have been filed after the Bombay Court-fees Act of 1959 (XXXVI of 1959) came into force on August 1, 1959. Article 16 of the First Schedule of the said Act, hereinafter called the new Act, has prescribed a fee to be paid on applications by the assessee under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Article 1(f) of the Second Schedule of the new Act has provided for fees to be paid on petitions or applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, under articles 226 and 227 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sakur Dadamiya Vs. Maruti Bali Kokate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1961
Reported in: (1961)63BOMLR607
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. In these three cases the Bombay Revenue Tribunal has taken the view that for the purposes of the proviso to Sub-section (I) of Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the holding of a deceased Muslim will after his death be treated as one unit, unless it is divided by metes and bounds and the shares of his heirs in it separated. The correctness of this view is being challenged before us.2. In the first two cases, the lands in dispute belonged to Dadamiya, the father of the two petitioners, and his brother Abdul Gafoor. Dadamiya died some time in 1947, leaving behind the petitioners and another son, six daughters and two wives. The first opponents in the two petitions are the tenants of these lands. They were provisionally declared to have become the owners of the lands after the issue of a notification by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 38E of the Act. The petitioners objected to these declarations. They contended tha...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Dagadu Mane Vs. Bapu Maruti Neel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR665
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioners are the landlords of three lands, which were held by opponent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the opponent', as a tenant. From the statements recorded by the Mamlatdar it appears that the opponent surrendered his tenancy rights some time before Gudi Padva Day in 1957 and handed over possession on the Padva Day. The Padva Day in 1957 was April 1, 1957. In December 1958, the Mamlatdar held an enquiry under Section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. He came to the conclusion that as the petitioners had obtained possession of lands without the orders of the Mamlatdar, as required by Section 29, they had acquired lands in contravention of the provisions of the Act and that consequently the acquisition of the lands by them was invalid. He, therefore, made an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 84C that the lands would vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances lawfully subsisting thereon. The petitioners appealed aga...
Tag this Judgment!General Construction and Supply Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer (8th) C-war ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR16(Bom)
Chainani, C.J.1. The appellants are a partnership firm doing business in Bombay. The Income-tax Officer had assessed the appellants under section 23 (3) read with section 34 (I) (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1947-48. He included in the assessable income a sum of Rs. 85,000 as the income of the appellants from some undisclosed sources. The amount was found to have been received by the appellants by encashing high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 85,000 on January 25, 1946. The appellants appealed against the order made by the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In their appeal they raised three contentions. The first was that the fact of encashment of the high denomination notes was known to the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment and that consequently he had no authority to proceed under section 34 of the Act. The second contention was that the amount in question did not represent the income of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »