Mumbai Court August 1962 Judgments
Ormerods (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR485(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act and the question referred to us is in the following terms : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'deemed dividends' of Rs. 4,04,071 and Rs. 3,42,687 were taxable as income of the previous years relevant to assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 respectively ?' 2. It is necessary to state that counsel for parties agreed that a mistake has crept in the print and the mistake is that for the year 1954-55 the year 1957-58 has been wrongly printed. Obviously, this appears to be a mistake because had the assessment year been 1957-58 altogether a different nature of the order would have been made in view of the amendment of section 23A of the Act in the year 1955. Facts for both years, except the quantum of deemed dividends, are the same. The Tribunal has, therefore, stated the facts of only one assessment year 1953-54, which gives rise to an identical question for both the years. Facts for...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR723(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. On a requisition made by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal has drawn up the statement of the case and referred to this court the questions hereinafter stated which it was directed to refer. These questions relate to the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1949-50, the relevant previous years for which were the years ending on the 31st July, 1943, 31st July, 1944, and 31st July, 1948. The assessee is a limited company, incorporated in the former Indian State of Rajasthan, and having its registered office at Sambhar Lake. It was a concern promoted and controlled by a well-known business house of Calcutta, known as Messrs. Surajmal Nagarmal. The main sources of the income of the assessee company were interested on loans, dividends from investments, etc. Although the assessee company was incorporated in the State of Rajasthan and had its registered office at a place in the said State, it was always held to be a resident and ...
Tag this Judgment!Laljee Deoraj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR234(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act and it arises out of the rejection of application under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for getting the alleged partnership constituted under a partnership deed of 28th October, 1955, registered. 2. The facts material in brief are : We are here concerned with the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. One Mehdi Hasan Laljee and his wife, Bai Jenubai, were carrying on a business in partnership, Mehdi Hasan having 14 annas' share and Jenubai having two annas' share therein. The income from this partnership, however, was being assessed in the hands of Mehdi Hasan as an individual. According to the applicant no objection to this procedure was raised by Jenubai in view of the provisions of section 16 of the Act. On 25th June, 1949, Mehdi Hasan made a will in respect of his 14 annas' share in the partnership business. Clause 13 of the will, which is material for the purpose of this reference, is in the fo...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Swami Vivekanand Ashram Vs. Kolhapur Sports Association ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR18; 1963MhLJ343
K.K. Desai, J.1. The petitioner in this revision application being tenant and original defendant contends that the trial Court as well as the appellate-Court wrongly held that to the suit premises the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, did not apply. The petitioner's case is that the findings made as above by the trial Court and the appellate Court are not well founded in law. On all other issues in both the Courts findings were made in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Vaidya for the petitioner, therefore, has again in this revision application urged that to the promises in suit the provisions of the above Act are applicable and that I should reverse the findings made by the Courts below.2. In connection with this contention, the only relevant facts are as follows:By a lease dated May 20, 1949, the Government of Bombay granted what is described as a permanent lease of certain lands with building standing thereon to the opponents-landlord. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Dharamdas Vora Vs. the Poona Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR119; 1963MhLJ325
Patel, J.1. His Lordships alter setting out the facts, proceeded. The first question that arises is whether a suit of this nature is competent. It is argued on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that we are concerned with a taxation statute, that the proper machinery is provided for ventilating the grievances against the said taxation, and, therefore, a civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit. According to him, the questions involved are questions which fall within the ambit of the machinery provided by the Act. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the question involved in the present case is one of the power of the Municipality to recover this tax from the Institution in question, i.e. legality of imposition or levy of the tax, and does not fall within the ambit of the machinery provided for by the Act. Mr. Lalit on behalf of his client relied on Western India Prospecting Syndicate Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedaba...
Tag this Judgment!The Charity Commissioner Vs. the Municipality of Taloda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR27; 1963MHLJ201(SC)
Patel, J.1. His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded. Mr. Jahagirdar has raised a preliminary point that the Charity Commissioner has no locus standi to appeal against the decision of the District Court. It is argued that as the Charity Commissioner is the authority who has finally to decide before the matter comes to the District Court all questions under the Act his interest in the decision is merely that of a Court or a Tribunal who decides a dispute and no further and, therefore, lie has no right to appeal against the decision of the District Court. He relies upon Sections 18 to 22 and 70 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.2. Section 18 requires a trustee to make an application for registration of the trust. Section 19 casts a duty upon the Assistant Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner of deciding matters enumerated in Section 19 either on an application or on his own motion. The matters to be decided are whether a trust exists and whether it is a publ...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Barucha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR135(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The assessee is an individual having several sources of income, one of which is financing film producers and distributors for interest, royalty or a share of profit. 2. Between 3rd March, 1952, and 5th November, 1952 the assessee had advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000 to a firm of film distributors known as Messrs. Tarachand Pictures. On the 5th January, 1953, the assessee entered into an agreement with Messrs. Tarachand Pictures. This agreement was in connection with the sum of Rs. 40,000 which was already advanced, and further sum of Rs. 60,000 which was to be advanced in respect of distribution, exploitation and exhibition of certain motion pictures. Under the terms of this agreement, it was agreed between the parties that by way of interest on the initial advance of Rs. 40,000 up to the date of the agreement a limp sum of Rs. 1,750 was to be paid in five monthly instalments. That interest was to cease to rum on the said initial advance of Rs. 40,000 thenceforth, and no ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaldas D. Ramchandani Vs. Kalelkar (B.S.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR10; [1963(7)FLR19]; (1963)ILLJ395Bom; 1963MhLJ6
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner in these petitions is the employer. Respondents 2, to whom I will refer hereafter as the respondents, are his employees. The respondents had made applications to the Payment of Wages Authority, in which they claimed wages for the weekly holidays during the period from 1 November, 1958 to 31 October 1959, under S. 18(3) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Sub-section (1) of S. 18 states that every shop and commercial establishment shall remain closed on one day of the week. Sub-section (3) is in the following terms : 'No deduction shall be made from the wages of any employee in a shop or commercial establishment on account of any day on which it has remained closed under this section. If any employee is employed on a daily wage, he shall nonetheless be paid his daily wage for the day on which such shop or commercial establishment remains closed. If any employee is paid a piece-rated wage, he shall nonetheless be paid his wage for the day on ...
Tag this Judgment!Santumal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Eastern Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC287(Bom)
Kotval, J.1. These are two petitions preferred by one Santumal Alamchand who has been assessed to sales tax under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (No. XXI of 1947). The two petitions are in respect to two different assessment years. In S.C.A. No. 390 of 1961 the assessment year is 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955, and in S.C.A. No. 389 of 1961 the assessment period involved is from 15th November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956. The petitioner had made quarterly returns as required by law in each year but the return were in every case delayed. The delay was not condoned by the authorities and so they have assessed the petitioner in both the years upon a best judgment assessment and under section 11(4) of the Act, for the delay in making the returns, the petitioner has also been penalized. The penalty imposed is Rs. 3,500 in the year involved in S.C.A. No. 390 of 1961, namely, 27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955, and in S.C.A. No. 389 of 1961 which is fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. K.R. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR525(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1956-57; the relevant accounting year, however, has not been mentioned in the statement of case. The assessee is a consulting architect and civil engineer. At the material time he was a partner in two registered firms, viz., M/s. K. R. Irani & Co. and M/s. National Steel Works, Bombay. The firm of National Steel Works, Bombay, was assessed for the assessment year 1956-57 and the share income apportioned to the assessee as a partner therein under section 23(6) of the Act came to Rs. 1,30,265. In his own assessment the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 15,337 from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,30,265 on the ground that the said sum represented payment of bonus to the staff of M/s. National Steel Works made by him in his capacity as a partner. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,337 has been debited to the account of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »