Mumbai Court October 1962 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.
H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi and anr. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR594(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the present reference : '(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 500 can be deducted in arriving at the total income of the 'previous year' ended March 31, 1950, when it was neither paid in that year nor any liability to pay it was incurred in that year though it related to professional services to be rendered at some future date after March 31, 1950 (2) Whether the monthly sum of Rs. 10,000 received by H. H. Maharaja Sir Lukhdhirji Bahadur from H. H. Maharaja Mahendrasinhji during the year ended March 31, 1953, is 'income' for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and (3) If so, whether the said receipt is of a casual and non-recurring nature and as such exempt from tax under section 4(3) (vii) ?' 2. The question arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal relating to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54. Although in question No. 1 the ...
Gaurishanker Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR655(Bom)
Tambe, AG. C.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 1946-47, the relevant previous year being one ended with 31st March, 1946. The 4th Income-tax Officer, C III-Ward, Bombay, came to know that the assessee received a remittance of Rs. 1,50,000 by telegraphic transfer on October 29, 1945. The said amount was dispatched from Bombay and was credited in the assessee's account in the Bank of Jaipur Limited in its Jaipur branch. On further inquiries, the Income-tax Officer came to know that the assessee was carrying on business at Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. He, therefore, after obtaining the necessary sanction, took action under section 34(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. A notice under section 34(1) (a) read with section 22(2) was served on the assessee by affixing it at the premises, 232-234, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay, where, according to the information received by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee was c...
D.P. Wadia and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR761(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In Central Provinces Syndicate (Private) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax we held that the provisions of article 16 of the Bombay Court Fees Act of 1959 were not applicable to applications under section 66(2) and section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which were made in respect of assessment proceedings which were initiated before the said provision came into force and those applications continued to be governed by the old Court Fees Act. A question has now arisen as to when the assessment proceedings could be said to have been initiated for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of the old Court Fees Act or the new Court Fees Act applied to the applications under section 66(2) and section 66(3) arising out of the said proceedings. 2. It is urged on behalf of the assessee that the assessment proceedings are initiated when the public notice under section 22(1) is given by the Income-tax Officer or at any rate when the time given in the said notice for the f...
Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR578(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred to us in this reference under section 66(1) is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was there a cessation of the trading liability within the meaning of section 10(2A) of the Act ?' 2. The question arises in the following manner : The assessee, a limited company, carried on business as a manufacturer of textile piece-goods at all material times. A large number of labourers and workmen had been employed by the company for the purpose of its business. In certain years, however, certain wages due to the labourers and workmen were not paid to them because some of them did not turn up to receive them. Previously it was the practice that such amounts of wages which remained unclaimed for a period of three years were added back to the profits of the assessee after the expiry of three years. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant accounting year being the calendar year 1955. It ...
Killick Nixon and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR244(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. In this case we have before us four questions, two of which were framed by the Tribunal on an application under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act made by the assessee and the other two on a requisition made by this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. All the four questions relate to the capital gains which were found to have accrued to the assessee company in the assessment year 1949-50. 2. The assessee was a partnership concern carrying on various businesses in Bombay under the name and style of Messrs. Killick Nixon & Co. An agreement was entered into by the partners of the assessee firm on 20th November, 1947, with a company called 'Killick Industries Limited' under which the said partners agreed to sell as on February 1, 1948, - (1) the full benefit of the managing agency contracts held by the assessee firm; (2) the several shares and debentures held by the assessee firm including the 240 shares of the Cement Agencies Ltd.; and (3) all book ...
General Manager, Haji Latif Gani Bidi Manufacturers and anr. Vs. Abdul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Bom89; (1963)65BOMLR401; [1963(7)FLR156]; ILR1963Bom856; (1963)IILLJ257Bom
Paranjpe, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226, or in the-alternative under Article 227 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27 July 1962 passed by the respondent No. 2 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing; respondent No. 2 to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue.2. The respondent No. 2 was employed as a Manager of the Tumsar Branch of M/s, Kaji Latif Gani, Bidi Manufacturers, Nagpur, for several years. He claimed that his services were wrongfully terminated on 30th July 1962 by the then, General Manager. The respondent No. 1. thereafter filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of the respondent No. 2 for recovery of the following amounts:(1) Over time wages for the periodJuly 1958 to June 1961 ...... Rs. 6851.25 nP.(2) Travelling allowance for theperiod July 1958 to June 1961 .....Rs. 1270.00(3) Leave in lieu with wages for theperiod 1948 to 1961 .....Rs. 1300.00(4) Bonus for t...
Haji Latif Gani, Nagpur Vs. Abdul Rashid Sheikh Mohammad Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1962
Reported in: 1963MhLJ361
Paranjpe, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226, or, in the alternative, under Art. 227 of the Constitution, for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27 July, 1962, passed by respondent 2 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent 2 to decide the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. 2. Respondent 1 was employed as a manager of the Tumsar Branch of Haji Latif Gani, Bidi Manufacturers, Nagpur, for several years. He claimed that his services were wrongfully terminated on 30 July, 1961 (?), by the then general manager. Respondent 1 thereafter filed an application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of respondent 2 for recovery of the following amounts : RS. NP. (1) Overtime wages for the period July 1958 to June 1961 ... 6,851 28(2) Travelling allowance for the period July 1958 to June 1961 ... 1,270 00 (3) Leave in lieu with wages for the period 1948 to 1961 ... 1,300 00 (4) Bonus for the period 1948 to 1961. ... ... ... 5,800 00-----...
Cursetji J. Dubash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR671(Bom)
Tambe, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts leading to this reference in brief are : 2. Mrs. Katie, wife of the assessee and mother of Gulu, was the lessee of the cinema theatre known as 'Kasturba Talkies' situate at Malad, a suburb in the City of Bombay. On 31st July, 1951, she entered into an agreement with one Pirojsha Rustomji Irani, for the running of the said theatre on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the deed, annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. This agreement was treated as an instrument of partnership between herself and P. R. Irani. She died intestate on 1st February, 1957, and according to the personal law governing her, her heirs were her husband, the assessee before us, and her minor daughter, Gulu. A new agreement for the running of the theatre 'Kasturba Talkies' was entered into between C.J. Dubash, the assessee before us, acting for himself and as father and natural guardian of the...
Trustees of Chaturbhuj Raghavji Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR693(Bom)
V. S. Desai, J.1. One Chaturbhuj Raghavji created a trust on February 15, 1928, settling certain properties for the benefit of his wife, children and other members of his family. It was provided in the trust deed that after the death of the settlor, the trust property and the income therefrom shall be held by the trustees upon trust to pay to Champavahoo, the wife of the settlor, if she should survive the settlor, during the term of her natural life, such amount of the income of the trust as the trustees may think proper for the use and benefit of herself and her children until the youngest son of the settlor shall attain the age of 18 years. It was further provided that after the death of the settlor and on the youngest son attaining the age of majority, the property shall be held under trust for the absolute use and benefit of the sons of the settlor and the trustees shall divide it among the sons in equal shares subject to adequate provision being made for the maintenance of Champav...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Union Co-operative Insu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR533(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question which is raised on this reference relates to the amounts of Rs. 29,615 and Rs. 44,920 paid by the assessee to its policy holders in the calendar years 1956 and 1957 respectively. 2. The assessee is a co-operative insurance company, carrying on general insurance business. During the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the relevant previous years for which were the calendar years 1956 and 1957, respectively the assessee paid by way of bonus to certain policyholders Rs. 29,615 in the first year, and Rs. 44,920 in the second year. These payments were made under by-law No. 52 of the by-laws of the company. This by-law provided so far as material for out purpose, as follows : '52. The profits shall be allocated as under carrying at least ten per cent. thereof to the statutory reserve fund which shall be invested or utilized as provided in section 37 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act...... (c) such percentage not exceeding fifty per cent. as may be deeme...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »