Mumbai Court June 1962 Judgments
Umanath Gopalkrishna Puthli Vs. the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR700
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. Respondent No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 1451, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, is Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. This Bank carries on banking business in Bombay. The petitioner is a member of this Bank. He was formerly its Director and also served for some time as Vice-Chairman of the Bank. Certain disputes between the petitioner and the Bank were referred for decision to the Registrar's Nominee under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. The Nominee made his award on March 27, 1961, by which he determined the liability of the petitioner and awarded a certain amount to the Bank. Against the order made by the Nominee, both the petitioner and the Bank appealed to the Maharashtra Cooperative Tribunal. At the time when the appeals came up for hearing, the Tribunal consisted of the President Mr. B.D. Nadkarni and another member Mr. S.A. Pande. Mr. Nadkarni holds one share in the Bank of the value of Rs. 25, but of which the paid-up v...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Bawalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR249(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On a requisition made by this court the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and referred a question of law to this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We are here concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the relevant accounting year being April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945. It appears that in May, 1944, the assessee had purchased 425 shares of Messrs. Suren & Co. Ltd. of Jamnagar, in his own name. Similarly, 425 shares were also purchased by the assessee's wife, Mrs. Manhar Motilal. This fact, however, came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer long after the assessment for the year 1945-46 had been completed. By a letter dated 19th January, 1954, the Income-tax Officer made certain enquiries from the assessee and the assessee informed him that the shares were purchased about the month of April or May, 1944. It appears that the Income-tax Officer made further enquiries as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskarrao Chimaji Garud Vs. Bhika Bhau Hon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1962
Reported in: (1962)64BOMLR702
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioners are the tenants of two lands, survey Nos. 9/2 and 10/3, which 'originally belonged to the joint family consisting of opponent No. 1 and his four sons opponents Nos. 2 to 5. In 1953 there was a partition in the opponents' family and the above two lands were allotted to the shares of opponents Nos. 2 to 5. Opponents Nos. 4 and 5 are minors and opponent No. 1 is their guardian. Opponent No. 1 had leased the above two lands to the father of the petitioners for a period of thirty years on March 27, 1942, for the purpose of growing sugarcane. The agreed rent was Rs. 440 per year. After the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act came into force, the petitioners became protected tenants under the provisions of this Act, Section 4B of this Act, as amended with effect from August 1, 1956, states that no tenancy of any land shall be terminated merely on the ground that the period fixed by agreement or usage for its duration has expired. Sub-section (1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Narandas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR893(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, and relates to his assessments for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The question raised on the reference is : 'Whether there is evidence to justify the finding that the income from the two properties and the deposits belonged only to the assessee in his individual capacity and not to the Hindu undivided family of which he was a member, so as to make the income therefrom taxable in his hands ?' 2. The properties in respect of which the question is raised are plot No. 45, Delisle Road, together with the building constructed thereon, and another property, plot No. 4. The deposits are four deposits, totalling to Rs. 1,37,000 which had been made by the assessee with four persons. The father, who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family, was carrying on milk business and also owned some property. The assessee during the lifetime of his father had acquir...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanji Ukka and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR740(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On a requisition made by this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case and referred three questions for each of the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47. The questions for these two years are identical in terms. The questions that fall for consideration in substance relate to the Principle of computing income, profits and gains within the meaning of sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act and determination of its quantum available for remittance in these two years. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, who are father and son. They belong to Mandvi, a town in the then native State of Kutch. The head Office of the firm is at Bombay, but at Bombay income earned is very small consisting of some commissions and interest which amount to a few hundred rupees only. The bulk of the income of ...
Tag this Judgment!Hukumchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR949(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. Two questions arising out of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 have been referred to us on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The questions relates to the determination of the written down value of the assets of the assessee and are as follows : '(1) Whether the words 'all depreciation actually allowed' used in section 10(5) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act refer only to the depreciation allowed for the purpose of determining the amount liable to Indian income-tax (2) Whether the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950, apply and were correctly applied to the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in the former Indore State. Up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1949-50, except for the assessment year 1948-49, the assessee was for a number of years taxed under the Indian Income-tax Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Pereira Fazalbhoy and Co. Vs. the Rajputana Cold Storage and Refrigera ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR87; 1963MhLJ335
Mody, J.1. This a Chamber Summons taken out by the applicants, who are attorneys of this Court, under Rule 573-A of the Rules of this Court applicable on its Original Side, for an order for payment of their costs against the respondents who were the clients of the applicants. The respondents had engaged the applicants as their attorneys for doing various types of work. In respect of that work done by the applicants, the applicants lodged inter alia three bills before the Taxing Master of this Court. Before lodging those bills, the applicants had obtained an order dated April 23, 1960, under Rule 569. That order was passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court under the powers delegated to him under Rule 96, Item No. 9. Thereafter, the Taxing Master taxed those bills and issued three separate allocates. By this summons the applicants pray for a payment order in respect of the amounts of those three allocates, each forming the subject-matter of a separate item of this summons...
Tag this Judgment!Keshardeo Shrinivas Morarka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR404(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, relating to his assessment for the year 1951-52, the following three questions are referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether the amount of loss to be carried forward under section 24(2) for the assessment year 1950-51 is the sum of Rs. 20,933 or that sum increased by the sum of Rs. 11,860 (2) Whether section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is ultra vires the legislature (3) Whether any appeal lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against levy of penal interest correctly computed in accordance with the provisions of section 18A(6) ?' 2. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the challenge which it sets up against the vires of the provisions of section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is set at rest by the decision of the Madras High Court in C. W. Spencer v. Income-tax Officer, Madras and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sar...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR54(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the applicant-assessee under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The applicant-assessee is the present jagirdar of Ichalkaranji of the former Kolhapur State. He attained majority on 23rd June, 1956. During his minority his estate was under the management and superintendence of the court of wards, the Collector of Kolhapur being the court of wards. We are here concerned with five assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55 which fell during the minority of the applicant. The assessment orders in respect of these years were under section 23(3) of the Act some time in the year 1954-55. On 4th April, 1957, the applicant's estate was released from the management of the court of wards. On 23rd April, 1957, the applicant filed five appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the assessment orders for the aforesaid five years. Along with the memo of appeals the applicant fil...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaben Bhagubhai Patel Vs. the Hindustan Electric Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Bom85; (1962)64BOMLR794; ILR1962Bom655; 1963MhLJ251
1. A question of some importance arises in this revisional application. The question is whether a decree passed in a Summary Suit, on the failure or the defendant to comply with the terms of conditional leave, can be set aside by the Court which passed the decree, on the ground that the defendant had sufficient reasons for not complying with the terms of the conditional orders. 2. A suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on a deposit receipt alleged to have been executed by the respondents. On the 20th of July 1960 a summons for judgment was taken out in the suit, in reply to which the respondents put in their affidavit on the 16th of October 1960, on the 10th of March 1951 the summons for judgment was heard when the respondents were given conditional leave to defend the suit, the condition being that they should deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- within a period of four weeks. The respondents did not comply with the condition whereupon the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »