Mumbai Court September 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, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. D' ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR1(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This reference arises out of the Tribunal's order granting registration to the partnership firm by reversing the orders of the income-tax authorities. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership of date March 5, 1954. The partners are the family members : five brothers and four sisters. Clause 7 of the deed of partnership provides : 'Net profits or losses of the partnership business arrived at after deducting the partners' salaries together with other business expenses shall be divided between the partners (as mentioned therein).' 2. In short each brother gets 3/23rd share and each sister gets 2/23rd share. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1954-55, the relevant accounting year is one ended on 31st March, 1954. This deed of partnership was executed during the course of the accounting year though not at its commencement. The assessee firm made an application year though not at its commencement. The assessee firm made an applicatio...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. Pranlal Kesurdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR931(Bom)
V.S. Desai J.1. The question referred to us on this reference under section 66(1) is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 10,960 in the assessment year 1950-51 and Rs. 15,060 in the assessment year 1951-52 as a revenue deduction before arriving at the assessable profits of the years of account ?' 2. The facts leading to the question briefly stated are as follows : The assessee carried on the business of Adatia and speculation. During the Samvat Year 2003 in certain forward transactions in turmeric which the assessee had put through on behalf of his constituents, there was a loss suffered by the constituents. One of these constituents was one Shantilal Jivraj, whose loss amounted to Rs. 14,960. The said Shantilal was in insolvent circumstances and not in a position to pay the loss suffered by him, and the loss fell on the assessee. In the Samvat Year 2005, on the 28th December, 1948, Shantilal Jivraj somehow man...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. R.B. Rungta and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR233(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The assessee was carrying on business at Sangli and Madhavnagar. The business consisted of dealing in grain, etc., both on ready and forward business and also as commission agents for constituents wishing to carry on forward business in grain, etc. In the course of its business as commission agents, the assessee carried on transactions on behalf of its constituents in forward business in commodities, which were found to be prohibited under the Spices Forward Contract Prohibition Order, 1944. Out of the constituents of the assessee, who had suffered losses in these transactions, some paid their losses, while the others did not. When the assessee attempted to recover the losses from them, they refused to pay on the ground that the transactions, being in essential commodities, were forbidden by law and the assessee, therefore, had no enforceable claim against them. Although the losses suffered by the constituents were not paid by them to the assessee, the assessee had to ...
K.T. Kubal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR433(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On a direction given by this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following two questions : '1. Whether on the facts of the case the observations made in the Tribunal's appellate order relating to the assessment years 1949-50 to 1952-53 amounted to information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) to entitled the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment for the tax years 1949-50 to 1952-53 under the said section and 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not allowing the commission paid to Mr. B. M. Desai as an admissible expenses under section 10(2)(xv) ?' 2. We are here concerned with the four assessment years 1949-50 to 1952-53, the relevant account years being the calendar years 1948 to 1951. The question in substance that arises for consideration is whether the assessment orders, ...
Dastur Dadi and Co. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR554(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. Messrs. Dastur Dadi & Co., a partnership firm of K. J. Dastur, D. F. Daruwala and B. N. Reporter, was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 18th September, 1951. In this partnership Dastur and Daruwala has each six annas' share and the third partner Reporter has a four annas share in the rupee. The firm has been registered by the Income-tax Officer up to the assessment year 1954-55. On the 31st of March, 1954, B. N. Reporter, one of the partners of the firm, retired from the partnership and the partnership business was thereafter continued by K. J. Dastur and D. F. Daruwala, sharing the profits equally. Applications for registration of the firm for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 were filed by the firm on the 6th of July, 1955, and 8th of May, 1956, respectively, and on the said applications the Income-tax Officer, treating the old firm as continued by the two continuing partners after the retirement of third partner, granted renewal registratio...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ravi Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR145(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised on this reference concerns the availability of the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation allowance for being set off against the losses of profits and gains under heads other than the head 'Business, profession or vocation'. 2. The assessee is a limited company. In the assessment year 1957-58, for which the previous year was the calendar year ending on 31st December, 1956, the assessee had an unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from the earlier year in the sum of Rs. 2,01,271. The depreciation for the current year was Rs. 75,594. After deducting the current year's depreciation from the income from business there was a balance of Rs. 24,054 as the business income for the year. The assessee had also property income in the year of account to the extent of Rs. 23,162. The Income-tax Officer set off the business income of Rs. 24,054 against the unabsorbed depreciation and showed the business income as nil for the year. He did not, however, allow th...
B.B. Iranee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR366(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a combined reference. One question has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of the section 66 of the Act and the other question has been referred on a direction issued to the Tribunal by this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Act. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : 2. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1947-48, the relevant previous year being the calendar year ended on 31st December, 1946. The assessee, Shri B. R. Iranee, proprietor of M/s. C. M. Karanjia & Co., has been carrying on a fairly large business of export and import both in Hongkong and Bombay. He was formerly residing in Hongkong and came to India on 29th of June, 1941, leaving an employee to look after his business there. Similar business was started by the assessee in Bombay in March, 1941, and one Mr. K. M. Vazifdar, an employee of the assessee, was looking after the Bombay business. From 29th June, 1941, till about 9th June, 19...
Ballarpur Collieries Company Vs. State Industrial Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1962
Reported in: (1963)65BOMLR556; 1963MPLJ891
Abhyankar, J.1. The petitioner, the Ballarpur Collieries Company, is a registered partnership firm. It has its registered office at Bisesar House in Nagpur. The petitioner owns coal mines in chanda district in this region. The business of the company is to sell coal extracted from its mines. The head office of the petitioner is at Nagpur and that consists of office staff of 35 persons. It was stated by the petitioner that the head office at Nagpur carried on correspondence with lawful authorities, mines and customers and received amounts of the bills of coal supplied to the customers. The staff of the mines is transferable to the head office and vice versa. 2. Respondent 3 was a stenographer. He had put in about 24 years' service as such with the concern. The present petitioner has acquired interest in the coal business from the predecessor with whom respondent 3 was also working. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 317 per month including allowances, etc., at the relevant time. It appears ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. M.M. Khanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR232(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and relates to an item of Rs. 927, which has been deleted from the assessment of the assessee as an individual on the ground that the said amount was not the income of the assessee as an individual but of the undivided Hindu family. 2. The assessee was a member of a Hindu undivided family consisting of his father, his younger brothers and the children of himself and his brothers and other female members of the family. The assessee, however, has his own independent income arising from salary, interest on Government securities, interest on bank current accounts and dividend income in respect of which he was assessed in the status of an individual. On 27th August, 1955, the assessee made a declaration whereby he impressed the separate and self-acquired property of the joint family consisting of himself, his wife, son and two daughters. The declarati...
M.R. Dalal (by His Legal Representative) Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR492(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the first question that falls for consideration is whether the reassessment proceedings started against the assessee on a notice under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Act have been validly initiated. 2. The following facts give rise to this reference : The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1952-53, the relevant previous year being one that ended with 31st March, 1952. The assessee is the late Dr. M. R. Dalal, who died on 2nd October, 1952, and therefore has been represented before the income-tax authorities, the Tribunal as well as before us by his legal representative, his wife, Bai Shirinbai M. R. Dalal. On October 13, 1939, Dr. M. R. Dalal made a trust settling certain shares and securities on trust for the benefit of his son, F. M. Dalal and two daughters securities on trust for the benefit of his son, F. M. Dalal, and two d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »