Mumbai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. D.R. Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR85(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question referred to us on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 23,732 in the case of Shri D. R. Sathe and the amount of Rs. 22,832 in the case of Shri. N. R. Sathe was exempt from tax in their hands in view of the Notification No. 878-F dated April 21, 1922, as amended by Notification No. 8 dated March 21, 1928, issued by the Central Government under section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?' 2. The question arises out of the assessment of the assessees for the assessment year 1947-48. The two assessees, viz., D. R. Sathe and N. R. Sathe, who are brothers, were employed by their third brother, G. R. Sathe, in his biscuit and chocolate factory, which was run under the name and style of 'Sathe Biscuit and Chocolate Works'. D. R. Sathe was a mechanical engineer and N.R. Sathe was a chemist and both of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Gammon India Private Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR97(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of the section 66 of the Income-tax Act at the Instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. These questions are : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,75,000 being the profit of the two preceding years, but taxed in the relevant year of account in respect of the Sabarmati contract, should have been taken into consideration in determining the distributable profits 2. Whether, in determining the smallness of profits, the reasonably anticipated tax liability to be imposed by the income-tax authorities could be taken into consideration ?' 2. Mr. Joshi, appearing for the revenue, stated before us that he does not press the second question, which has been raised by the Tribunal suo motu, in view of decision of this court in New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills Limited. Facts giving rise to the present reference are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on busines...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. Murlidhar Jhawar and Purn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR73(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred to us the following question under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment of the unregistered firm was proper and legal, the two partners of this partnership having been assessed in the respect of their shares of income from this partnership business ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : One Murlidhar Jhawar carried on business in the partnership and sale of groundnuts in association with the two partners of the firm called Purana Ginning and Pressing Factory. The business was conducted in accordance with the arrangements between the partners. The conduct of the business was in the hands of Murlidhar. This business venture lasted for a few months in the accounting year ending with 6th November, 1953. We are here thus concerned with the assessment year 1954-55. In the assessment pro...
Chandrabhagabai Udhaorao Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR454
Abhyankar, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Bhumiswami of S. No. 76, area 35.20 acres, land-revenue Rs. 26, of village Chincholi. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are Bhmniswamis of S. No. 68, area 19.6 acres, land-revenue Rs. 21-10-6, of same village. They have come to this Court with a request for quashing the notification issued by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of this Division, acting under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, declaring that 4 acres and 2 gunthas out of S. No. 68 and 2 acres and 38 gunthas out of S. No. 76 are proposed, to be acquired for extension of Gaothan for flood sufferers. It appears that in the month of July in the year 1960, river Arunawati which flows through village Chincholi and by the side of Gaothan and other survey numbers flooded a part of the existing Gaothan area, thus dislocating some of the residents. It is alleged that about six houses were washed away and 35 other persons suffered considerable damage to their structures. A proposal was, therefore, mo...
Munda Chapla Banjari Vs. the Commissioner, Nagpur Division
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR667
Kotval, J.1. These three petitions raise a question of some importance as to whether a lease granted by a receiver in insolvency would make the lessee a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, and for that reason whether he would continue to have the protection of tenancy laws.2. One Laxman Balwant Deshmukh was on his own petition declared insolvent on August 13, 1953, in Insolvency Case No. 11 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class I, Yeotmal. Prior to the adjudication order, on January 23, 3953, there was appointed a receiver in insolvency. He was Mr. Joglekar, a pleader. In the normal course of management of the property, Mr. Joglekar granted yearly leases to various individuals of certain fields belonging to the insolvent which were admittedly 'alienated' lands. Three such persons to whom or to whose ancestors the fields of the insolvent were leased are the three petitioners in these petitions. In Special Civil Applications Nos. 251 and...
State Vs. Ramsingh Desasingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom68; (1962)64BOMLR451; 1963CriLJ567; ILR1962Bom504
Chainani, C.J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that on the evening of 8th December 1960 the accused wasarrested as he was suspected to have consumed alcohol.He was sent to the hospital for examination. The medicalofficer, who examined him, issued a Certificate Exh. 3, inwhich he has stated that the breath of the accused smeltof liquor, that his pupils were dilated, that his eyes werecongested and that he had consumed liquor. The medicalofficer also collected some blood from the body of theaccused and sent it to the Chemical Analyser for examination. On 1-4-1961 the Chemical Analyser issued a certificate, that the blood contained 0.292 per cent. W/Vof ethyl alcohol. The accused was then prosecutedon the charge of consuming liquor and thereby committingan offence punishable under Section 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In order to prove that the accused hadconsumed prohibited liquor, the prosecution relied on Sub-section (2) ot Section 66 of the Act, which states th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›