Mumbai Court September 1961 Judgments
M.R. Goyal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1095(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. 2. The assessee carried on his business in the name and style of Milkhiram Brothers. His business consisted of imports and sale of silk goods like nylons and parachute silk and other types of luxury articles like crockery, etc. On the 29th of October, 1946, the assessee made an offer of Messrs. Tata Aircraft Limited of purchase from them a whole lot of parachutes on certain terms and conditions as contained in the said letter of offer. Some of the terms of this offer were that the purchase price was to be Rs. 95,00,000; deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs was to be made by the purchaser and delivery of the goods purchased was to be completed by the 31st January, 1947. In anticipation of the contract the purchase of parachutes materialising, the assessee entered into an arrangement with three financiers, Messrs. Nathmal Nihalchand, Pokhr...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mainabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Bom202; (1962)64BOMLR127; ILR1962Bom134
Patel, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur, of an offence under section 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Girls Act, 1956. It was alleged against the accused that she kept and managed brothel where two other women as her inmates were lodged and that she was living on the earnings of those women's prostitution. Along with the accused the two who were so used were also tried. The respondent was charged for contravening section 3(1) and section 4 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the case of the other two accused. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge against her. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Barsi, before whom she was put up, accepted this plea of guilty and convicted her of the offences with which she was charged and sentenced her to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- for each offence. He directed the substantive sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!S. Inder Singh Gill Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR284(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. The judgment will govern the decision of both the aforesaid references. They arise out of the same order of the Tribunal. The assessee, S. Inder Singh Gill, is a resident in Uganda (Africa). We are concerned with six assessment years i.e., 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, the corresponding previous years being the financial years ending with the 31st of March of each year. For these aforesaid years, one Jeevansingh Grewal was treated as the assessee's statutory agent within the meaning of section 43 of the Act. In those assessment, the only income belonging to S. Inder Singh Gill, who is the assessee before us and to whom we would hereafter refer as the assessee, assessed was income from certain Bombay properties. In February, 1955, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee owned in the taxable territories certain other properties also. He, therefore, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, initiated proceedings under section 34(1) (a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Wadilal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR305(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question referred to this court by the Tribunal on this reference under section 66(1) of the India Income-tax Act at the instance of the department is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of that case, the two gifts of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000 made by the assessee were hit by the provisions of section 16(3) (a) (iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The facts which give rise to this question may be briefly stated as follows : The assessee, Shri Wadilal Chunilal, is a partner along with his son, Kanchanlal, and three in the firm of M/s. Kanchanlal Wadilal & Co. The assessee has a wife, Vasantibai, by whom he has no issue and who is the step-mother of his son, Kanchanlal. The son, Kanchanlal, has his wife, Padma, and a minor son, Pradeep. On the 26th of October, 1954, the assessee made a gift of Rs. 1 lakh to his daughter-in-law, Padma, wife of Kanchanlal. On the same day he also made a gift of Rs. 50,000 to his minor grandson, Pradeep, son of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Bom33; (1962)64BOMLR102; ILR1962Bom346
Desai, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and the question which it raises for our consideration is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances or the case the assessee was entitled to a deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,250/- paid as income-tax Consultant tees under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act?'2. The assessee is an individual deriving his income from property, business and dividends on joint stock company shares. In the assessment of his income for the assessment year 1952-53 the assessee claimed a deduction of an amount of Rs. 8,250/- which was paid by him as fees to the Income-tax Consultant during the relevant year of account as an expenditure allowable under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. It appears that the services of the Income-tax Consultant to whom the said sum of Rs. 8,250/- was paid as fees, were engaged by the assessee in the year 1950 in respect of the assessment years 1944...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR107(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and the question which it raises for our consideration is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to a deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,250 paid as income-tax consultant fees under section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is an individual deriving his income from property, business and dividends on joint stock company shares. In the assessment of his income for the assessment year 1952-53 the assessee claimed a deduction of an amount of Rs. 8,250 which was paid by him as fees to the income-tax consultant during the relevant year of account as an expenditure allowable under section 10(2) (xv) of the Act. It appears that the services of the income-tax consultant to whom the said sum of Rs. 8,250 was paid as fees, were engaged by the assessee in the year 1950 in respect of the assessment years 1944-...
Tag this Judgment!Khemchand Gorumal Vs. Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR235
Datar, J.1. There is in this city a public trust known as Shrimati Pahunchbai Deepchand Hinduja Trust. It seems it is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and it is managing two educational institutions in this city.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are trustees of this public trust.3. On February 17, 1959, a meeting of the trustees was held and it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 4 was set up by the other defendants as having been appointed as the managing trustee in that meeting, although in the agenda of that meeting there was no question or subject on the appointment of defendant No. 4 as the managing trustee. This, according to the plaintiff, was done without his consent and concurrence,. although he was present in the said meeting.4. On March 16, 1959, the plaintiff instituted the present suit. In para. 3 of his plaint he stated that in the meeting of February 17, 1959, no other business was transacted...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Harjivan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1129(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference in compliance with the requisition of this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. 2. The assessee, Shri Harilal Harjivan, is a partner in a firm known as 'F. Cornaglia & Co.' carrying on the business of restaurant keepers. On the 11th March, 1950, the assessee purchased the said restaurant business from two persons, who were carrying it on in partnership, for a sum of Rs. 50,000. In the books of the assessee's partnership firm, which was a partnership of the assessee, his father and his two brothers, entries pertaining to this purchase of the restaurant business were made on 9th March, 1950. The partnership deed relating to the partnership of the assessee, his father and his two brothers, was executed on the 4th April, 1950, and the said deed stated that the partnership would be deemed to have commenced from 11th March, 1950. In the assessment year 1951-52, the relevant accounting year for which was t...
Tag this Judgment!Paliram Mathuradas (by His Legal Heir, Madanlal Paliram) Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: [1966]59ITR278(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee was one Paliram Mathuradas, now represented by his legal heir and son, Madanlal. We are concerned with the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53, the relevant accounting years being Samvat years, one commencing from 22nd October, 1949, and ending with 8th November, 1950, and the other commencing from 9th November, 1950, and ending with 1st October, 1951. Prior to these accounting years, the assessee was a partner in a firm consisting of himself and his sons, carrying on business under the name and style 'Messrs. Paliram Mathuradas & Sons'. On the retirement of the assessee from the partnership, it was found that a sum amounting to Rs. 1,13,000 was due from the firm to the assessee, and at the beginning of the year, i.e., on 22nd October, 1949, that amount was credited in the name of the assessee. That account of the assessee was debited with a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the accounts of two gra...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Bagri Brothers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1961
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR634
S.M. Shah, J.1. This notice of motion to set aside a certain transfer of the property and assets of certain businesses including tenancy rights belonging to the debtor has been taken out by the Official Assignee. The notice of motion has been taken out under Section 55 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, which says thatAny transfer of property, not...made in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent within two years after the date of the transfer, be void against the official assignee.2. The facts leading to this notice of motion are shortly as follows:The debtor was doing business in Bombay, Lucknow, Calcutta and Cawnpore in the name of Bagri Bros, prior to October 1952. From the schedule filed by the debtor in his Insolvency it appears that during the years 1950 to 1952 he had incurred heavy debts to the tune of about Rs. 40,000. In respect of these debts suits were filed by the creditors and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »