Mumbai Court March 1964 Judgments
Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd. Vs. A.V. Raman, Income-tax Officer, Compa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR310(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to get quashed the notices dated the 25th of September, 1953, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay, the first respondent hereto, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The petitioner-assessee is a company incorporated in Bombay under the Indian Companies Act. The main business of the company is to refine crude oil. We are here concerned with the two assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 relating to which both the notices have been issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-company, being a newly established undertaking, is entitled to the benefit provided under sub-section (1) of section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), which was the Act which governed the assessment of the petitioner-company in the aforesaid relevant assessment years, and the benefit provided by sub-section (1) of section 15C is that tax is not payable by such a co...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Shankar Dnyanoba Gambhire and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom17; (1964)66BOMLR446; 1965CriLJ145; ILR1964Bom707
Naik, J.(1) This is an appeal by the State from an order of acquittal. The accused is a dealer in edible oil and carries on his business in shop No.128, situate at Moraji Peth, Sholapur, N.R. Deshpande, who is the Food Inspector appointed by the Municipal Borough of Sholapur, visited his shop on 18-12-63 and called upon the accused to sell him 300 ml. of coconut oil for the purpose of analysis. Accordingly, the accused sell him the said quantity. The Food Inspector paid him the price, which was Rs.1.12 nP. and the accused passed a receipt in respect of the same. The Food Inspector then divided the oil in three parts, handed over one part to the accused and retained two parts with himself. The accused passed a receipt in respect of having received the bottle given by the Good Inspector to him. The Food Inspector then sent one sample bottle to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The report of the Public Analyst dated 6th March 1963 is at Ex. 13. The Analyst found that the coc...
Tag this Judgment!Y.N. Killedar Vs. S.S. Malpathak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR1(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to get quashed various notices and others of attachment issued by the respondents. The first respondent is the Additional Collector of Bombay & B.S.D., who had made orders regarding recovery of tax. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are all Income-tax Officers and the fifth respondent is the Tax Recovery Officer in the Collectorate of Thana. 2. In this case the question that falls for determination is whether the income-tax assessee and determined on a partner of a registered firm in respect of his share of profits in the firm could not be recovered from another partner in the events the revenue is unable to recover the tax payable by that partner. Facts that give rise to this petition in brief are as follows : The assessee firm was doing business in Bombay under the name and style of Messrs. Moosa Haji Mohamed Killedar and Brothers, its partners being M. M. Killedar, Y. N. Killedar, who is the petitioner before us, and Shri Haji Ahmed Noor Moha...
Tag this Judgment!Khanchand Pokardas Vs. Harumal D. Varma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR829; 1965CriLJ75; 1965MhLJ143
ORDER(1) This revisional application raises a neat question of jurisdiction. Whether the Poona Court can entertain a pauper suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The relevant facts are these. Some time prior to 4th February 1962 the Defendant in Bombay entrusted certain diamonds of the value of Rs. 15,000/- to one Jairamdas, the brother of the Plaintiff for the purpose of sale on commission, but while Jairamdas was travelling from Bombay to Poona his pocked was picked. However, the Defendant filed a Criminal complaint against Jairamdas and the Plaintiff (both of whom carry on business as jewellers at Poona) in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate at Esplanade, Bombay, charging them with the offences of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof under Sections 403 and 406 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. This criminal complaint was filed by the Defendant on 14th February 1962 and after obtaining the process from the criminal court in th...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR18(Bom)
Ordinarily we would not have written a judgment in dealing with these applications, but as a question has been raised on behalf of the Revenue that if there be a decision on a question of law by the Supreme Court of India then no more that question of law could be said to arise under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), hereinafter called the Act, we think it will be better to write a judgment.The question arises thus : The assessee before us is one Amarchand Jalan and the three applications relate to three different assessment years. The assessee is a remember of a family known as Jalan family and the family owns a firm. Lokenath, Tolaram, Champalal, Dharamchand and Amarchand, the assessees before us, are brothers. In the books of account of the firm belonging to the Jalan family the following entries about gifts are made :Name of DoneeAmountDateName of Donor Rs. 1. Rajendra Kumar, s/o Lokenath50,0003-2-1951Amarchand2. Krishna Kumar, s/o Amarc...
Tag this Judgment!National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. G.R. Bahmani, Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR114(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner, National Rayon Corporation Ltd., a public limited company, seeks to get quashed by a writ of certiorari the order made by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I(3), Bombay, the respondent hereto, on the 29th of January, 1963, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are : In the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year being calendar year 1955, the income-tax of the assessee-company on its total income was computed at nil and the previous loss was ordered to be carried forward. The assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on February 17, 1958. In the previous year relating to the assessment year 1956-57, however the petitioner-company had declared dividends amounting to Rs. 15,77,340 on its ordinary subscribed share capital of Rs. 1,57,71,400. The declared divide...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondu Shamrao Polakhare Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: (1964)66BOMLR540; 1964MhLJ638
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of the land, which belongs to opponent No. 4, hereinafter referred to as the opponent. The opponent made an application under Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, for obtaining possession of the land from the petitioner, on the ground that he required the same bona-fide for personal cultivation. The Naib Tehsildar granted his application. That order was set aside in appeal by the Sub-divisional Officer, who held that the income from the land would not be the principal source of maintenance of the opponent. In revision, the Revenue Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer and restored the order made by the Naib Tehsildar. The order passed by the Revenue Tribunal is being challenged before us.2. Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act provides that the right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy under Sub-section (1) shall be subject to the foll...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Chimna Vs. Pralhad Deorao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom74; (1964)66BOMLR499; ILR1964Bom702
(1) This appeal arises from the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 before me, for possession of survey No. 92 of mouza kopadi. The following facts are no more in dispute. One Ramji, the grandfather of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of plaintiff No. 3 was at the relevant time the owner of this survey number. He died in the year 1941 leaving him surviving his widow Bainabai, plaintiff No. 3 , and two sons Deorao and Bhaurao, who are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the suit. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Pralhad and Dnyaneshwar, are the sons of Deorao. There was a partition of the joint family estate on 31st December 1951 whereunder the joint family properties were partitioned between Deorao and Bhaurao. As a result of this partition, the suit field along with other properties came to the share of Bharurao. On 5th of January 1952 Bhaurao sold away the suit field to defendant No.1, who is appellant before me, for the sum of Rs. 2500/-. Subsequent ...
Tag this Judgment!Zadba Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom19; (1964)66BOMLR474; ILR1964Bom699
Chainani. C.J.(1) The land is dispute in this case was leased to the petitioner for the year 1958059. On 15.4.1959, opponent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the opponent gave a notice to the petitioner, terminating his tenancy with effect from 30-4-1959. On 22-4-1959, the opponent made an application for obtaining possession of the land under section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidurbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer and in revision by the Revenue Tribunal.(2) Mr. Manohar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has raised two points. He has first urged that the application for possession was premature, as it was made by the opponent even before the petitioner's tenancy had been terminated. It is, however, conceded that the opponent could have made an application for possession after 30-4-1959. No prejudice has, therefore, been caused to the petitioner by the application made by the opponent being...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. Hirani Construction Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1964
Reported in: [1966]60ITR599(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) if the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner. The question referred to us, in our opinion, will have to be answered in favour of the revenue having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jadavji Narsidas & Co. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the accounting period being from November 3, 1956, to October 23, 1957. 2. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are. The assessee before us is a partnership concern doing construction work under the name and style of Messrs. Hirani Construction company. The partnership consists of five partners. The assessee-firm will be referred to hereafter as Hirani firm, This firm commenced its business from January 1, 1956. The capital of the firm was Rs. 25,000 to be contributed equally by the five partners. The five partners shared equally in the profit and loss. This firm was registered under the Income-tax Act. Now, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »