Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR892(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act. Assessee Bhagirathibai (deceased) is now represented before us by her legal representatives, Motilal Manakchand, her husband, and Maganlal Motilal, her son. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1950-51. Assessee Bhagirathibai, her husband, Motilal, and son, Maganlal, were members of a Hindu joint family. Motilal and Maganlal were doing business under the name and style of Motilal Manakchand each having 8 annas' share therein. One of the businesses carried on by them was the managing agency business. On 29th June, 1949, there was a partition of the joint family property and the terms and conditions agreed between the members were reduced to writing in a partition deed. As a result of this partition, Bhagirathibai became entitled to receive 0-2-8 share from here husband, Motilal, and 0-2-8 share from her son, Maganlal, out of their respective shares of 8 annas in the managing agency busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR206(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference arises out of the proceedings taken under section 23A of the Act and the question to be decided is whether the order made under that section has been validly made by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The assessee, Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., is a public limited company. But there is no dispute that the provisions of section 23A could be applied to the said company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1949-50, the relevant previous year being the one ended on the 31st of March, 1948. The annual general meeting of the company was held on the 30th December, 1948, and at the said general meeting a sum of Rs. 3,68,433 was declared as dividend. It is not in dispute that the company had not declared the requisite percentage of dividend as required by the provisions of section 23A of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, considered that this was a case to which the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]51ITR255(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises a question, which is common to the Tribunal's orders relating to the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60. The question arises in the following manner : Seth Walchand and his wife, Bai Kasturbai, both of whom were possessed of their own properties, decided to settle some of the properties possessed by them upon trust. They accordingly executed a trust deed on the 25th of November, 1946. Under the said trust deed they constituted themselves and three brothers of Seth Walchand as the trustees. The properties comprised in this trust were certain shares and policies of insurance on the life of Seth Walchand and also some shares, some house property and lands belonging to Bai Kasturbai. After providing for the management expenses of the trust, clause 7 of the trust deed provided that the net income arising from the trust funds was to be paid to Bai Kasturbai during her lifetime and it also gave liberty to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR218(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The short question with which we are concerned in the present reference relates to the proper interpretation and meaning of the expression 'any premium received in cash by the company on the issue of its shares' in the Explanation to Paragraph D of Part II of the Indian Finance Act, 1956. 2. The question arises in the following manner : The Standard Mills Company Limited, Bombay (hereafter referred to as the Standard Mills) is a public company limited by shares and its business is manufacturing of cotton textiles. Sometimes in the year 1950, the Standard Mills thought of amalgamating with another company which was known as Indian Bleaching, Dyeing and Printing Works Ltd. The managing agents of the Standard Mills accordingly issued a circular letter to its shareholders on the 1st February, 1951, relating to the proposed amalgamation. In order to determine the equitable basis of amalgamation, the accounts of the two companies up to 31st August, 1950, were got audited, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR196(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee, All India Reporter Limited, is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. The business carried on by the company inter alia, is printing, publishing and conducting All India Reporter, and to print, publish and sell any work, to start a newspaper and to work as booksellers. One Bhagirathdas holding 12 shares of Rs. 100 each field a petition under section 439 of the Indian Companies Act on September 21, 1956, for winding up of the company. In this petition, which is annexure 'A' to the statement of case, he prayed that the assessee company be wound up by and under the directions of the court; that a court liquidator or some other fit and proper person be appointed liquidator of the company with all necessary powers under the provisions of the Companies Act; that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the court liquida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom200; (1963)65BOMLR627; ILR1963Bom478
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition raises an interesting and an important point of interpretation, under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. This Act has been made applicable to Vidarbha region by the Extension and Amendment Act 1960, applying the provision of this Act all over the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner, Shri S. N. Kherdekar, is a Advocate of this Court, and also the elected Secretary of the High Court Bar Association at Nag-pur. The Association is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has been practising for the last 27 years in the High Court and also enrolled under the Legal Practitioners Act and now under the new Advocates Act, 1961.3. The petitioner has stated that he is practising at his own residence and does not maintain an establishment. He carries on profession by receiving briefs at his house. He has a clerk who looks after the Court work. The clerk is a registered clerk under the rules of the High Court. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom242; (1963)65BOMLR241; 1963MhLJ235
Abhyankar, J. 1. The petitioner Sitaram is an owner of field survey No. 6/1 of mouza Kapustalni, having an area of 7 acre and 33 gunthas. He is aggrieved by the notification issued by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, first under Section 4 and later under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring the said field for the purpose of extension of gaothan of village Kapustalni. In this petition he challenges that notification as not bona tide and as other wise invalid on several other grounds. 2. The petitioner has filed a sketch showing the gaothan and surrounding survey numbers of village Kapustalni to be found at page 80 of the paper book. It appears that the village is affected by floods in the rains and there were heavy rains in 1959 which resulted in some of the residents suffering damage on account of the floods. The Commissioner, Nagpur Division, issued a notification as 21-7-60 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire survey No. 263 of that village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom183; (1963)65BOMLR123; ILR1962Bom810; 1963MhLJ351
Chainani, C.J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these. The general elections for electing councillors of the Poona Municipal Corporation are to be held on 23rd September 1962. The last date for filing nomination papers was 3ist August 1962, 5th September 1962 was fixed as the date for scrutiny of nomination papers. The petitioner and opponent No. 2 had filed nomination papers from Ward No. 4. Opponent No. 2 submitted three nomination papers Nos. 32, 33 and 34. These nomination papers did not bear his signature. An objection was, therefore, raised that as opponent No. 2 had not signed the nomination papers, as required by Clause (c) in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Election Rules contained in the Schedule Jo the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, the nomination papers were invalid. The Municipal Commissioner, who is the Returning Officer, heard all the parties and thereafter overruled the objection. In his opinion two points arose for consideration:(1) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR293(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On a direction given by this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up the statement of the case, raising the following two questions : '(1) Whether the Tribunal exceeded its power under section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act in disallowing the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,13,000 (rupees one lakh thirteen thousand) on the ground that the said amount was not paid by the petitioner (2) Whether there was any evidence on record to support the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had paid to Milkhiram Rs. 1,87,000 (rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand) and Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakhs) ?' 2. In our view, it would not be necessary to answer the second question inasmuch as our answer to the first question would be sufficient for the disposal of the reference in favour of the assessee. 3. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee is a partnership...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]49ITR369(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The assessee is a limited company registered as a public company some years ago. Its share capital consists of 50,000 shares subscribed and paid up. 47,493 out of these 50,000 shares are held by Shree Raghunatha Investment Trust Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Jammu and Kashmir and having its registered office there. Out of the remaining 2,507 shares, 2,500 shares are held by another limited company incorporated in India and having its registered office in New Delhi, and the remaining 7 shares are held by seven individuals. Shree Raghunatha Investment Trust Limited, which will here after be referred to as the Jammu Company, has a share capital consisting of 20,000 shares and these are held amongst seven persons, one of them L. Yodhraj holding 12,497 shares. Three other persons have a shareholding of 2,500 shares each and three more persons hold the remaining three shares one each. The shares of the assessee company are not quoted on the stock exchange an...
Tag this Judgment!