Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]54ITR358(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J 1. The questions arising on this reference relate to the application of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act to the assessee company. In the assessment year 1956-57 for which the relevant accounting year was the year ended 31st March, 1956, the company declared as dividend a sum of Rs. 99,750 in respect of the profits of the year ended March 31, 1956, at the annual general meeting held on 8th November, 1956. This amount was more than 55% but less than 60% of the amount of Rs. 1,75,608 which was the balance available out of the assessee income after the deduction of the taxes payable thereon. The income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee-company was one which was required, under section 23A, to distribute all the balance available by way of dividend. He, therefore, gave a notice to the assessee-company to declare the entire amount to the balance as dividend and since the assessee-company failed to do so, he made an order against it under section 23A. Aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1964)66BOMLR677; 1965MhLJ458
Tulzapurkar, J.1. These three revisional applications have been preferred by each one of the petitioners against each one's conviction and sentence of fine imposed by the Presidency Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Bombay, for the offence under Section 394(1)(c) read with Section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Since the facts on the basis of which each one of the petitioners was prosecuted in the Court of the learned Presidency Magistrate are identical and each one of them was convicted for the similar offence, I propose to dispose of all the three revisional applications by a common judgment.2. Opponent No. 3 is the owner of a number of stables situated at Patel Wadi, Andheri, while the three petitioners, who own buffaloes are his tenants in respect of certain hooks or khilas to which they tethered their milch cattle. The petitioner in Criminal Revisional Application No. 1011/63 owns 30 buffaloes and at the material time he used to tether his buffaloes to 30 khilas in st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]53ITR638(Bom)
WANCHOO J. - This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ or order in the nature of prohibition and/or mandamus directing the Income-tax Officer and the State of Madhya Pradesh from levying or collecting income-tax and/or any other tax from them for the financial years 1956-57, 1957-58, and, thereafter, up to June 1958, with respect to income from the business of their Biscuit and Confectionery Factory at Gwalior and for certain other consequential reliefs. The case of respondents was that they intended to install a factory for the manufacture of biscuits and confectionary at Bombay, but the Government of Madhya Bharat was anxious that the factory should be started at Gwalior and, therefore, passed an Order on May 20, 1949, granting certain concessions to the respondents if their factory was set up in Gwalior. These concessions were :1. No customs du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]53ITR623(Bom)
Sikri, J. 1. These are two appeals by way special leave against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated October 23, 1959, in a case referred to the High court relating to the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The respondent, M. Ganapathi Mudaliar, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, joined the cloth business started by Ayyaru in Singapore, in the name of Thyagesan and Company. The assessee had married Ayyaru's sister. By an agreement dated September 23, 1940 (annexure 'A') between Ayyaru and the assessee, the assessee was engaged as a manager for a period of three years from September 23, 1940. His remuneration was to be fixed salary at the rate of $ 18 per month and a commission of 10% on the net profits of the business, to be calculated at the end of the said three years. He was also to be provided with free board and lodging. Clause 4 of the agreement provided that the net profits of the business shall be as shown in the profit and loss account of the business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]54ITR189(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee before us is a court receiver appointed by this court in a suit filed on its Original Side, Suit No. 3415 of 1947. The assessment years with which we are here concerned are 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51; the relevant account years are financial years ending 31st March, 1948, 31st March, 1949 and 31st March, 1950, respectively. The dispute relates to 1/3rd share of the income of the property in those relevant accounting years and the question that arises for decision is whether the said income is liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act and of so whether the applicant before us is liable to be assessee in respect of the said income. The question arises thus : One Haji Alimohamed Haji Cassum owned extensive properties. He died testate on November 6, 1946, having made a will of the date November 30, 1944. We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1964]54ITR518(Bom)
V.S. DESAI, J.1. The assessee is private limited company whose shareholders are Mulraj Kersondas and his nominees and is thus controlled by the Mulraj. The assessee is dealer in the shares, both in forward and ready market. It was incorporated some time in the early forties. In the year 1942 Mulraj Kersondas obtained control of the Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Elphinstone Mills). He also acquired the managing agency of the Elphinstone Mills for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. There was also another private limited company known as Chidambaram Mulraj & Co. Ltd., and the shareholders of this limited company were Mulraj and his nominees, including the present assesseee. In the year 1943, Mulraj assigned the managing agency of the Elphinstone Mills to Chidambaram Mulraj & Company. During the years 1942 to 1948, the dealings in shares of the assessee-company included dealing in shares of the Elphinstone Mills also and the profit and loss even in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1964)66BOMLR793; 1965MhLJ130
K.K. Desai, J.1. This is a debenture holder's petition for winding up of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). I propose to record shortly the reasons why it is necessary to make the order as prayed for in the petition. In March 1958, the company was completely closed down. Prior to that date, a petition, being I.C. No. 190 of 1957, was filed for winding up of the company. The company filed a petition, being I. C. No. 84 of 1958, in June 1958 for sanction of a scheme of arrangement. The order sanctioning the scheme proposed was passed on July 17, 1958. A copy of the order and the scheme is annexed as exh. A to the petition. The contents of the scheme show that at the date of the order sanctioning the scheme, the liabilities of the company consisted of (i) secured creditors of the value of Rs. 1,34,80,000 and (ii) unsecured creditors of the value of Rs. 1,82,58,000. Under the scheme, the unsecured creditors, who were not the workers, agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1964MhLJ566
1. This is an appeal by a workman under the Workman's Compensation Act. He was working as a carpenter with the respondent While removing the centering, etc., of a 'chajja' it collapsed and fell on him and he was seriously injured. He was in hospital for seven months. The doctor gave a certificate that the disability was 65 per cent. The appellant claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. He claimed a sum of Rs. 3,185 relying on this certificate. The respondent denied, that the injury was caused by reason of the employment and alleged that he acted contrary to instructions. He also attributed his own negligence in the doing of the work and pleaded that he had paid in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 2,850 to the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, that the respondent was liable and he had not proved that the amount of Rs. 2,850 was paid by him to the appellant. He held that the appellant fell within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom28; (1964)66BOMLR569; ILR1965Bom113
ORDER(1) This is an application in revision against an interlocutory order by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, directed that the petitioner-defendant should produce and give inspection to the plaintiff of certain documents.(2) The plaintiff appeared at the Secondary School Certificate Examination held by the petitioner-Board in the month of March 1963. She was trying for the Jagannath Shankar Sheth Sanskrit Scholarship. On 3rd June 1963 the results of the said examination were declared. At the examination the first student got 94, second 93, third 92 and eight students got 90 marks each and she was one of those eight. On 10th July 1963 the plaintiff made an application purporting to be one under regulation 41(2) for amendment of the result on the ground that she was expecting about 96 or 97 marks and that there must be some error. After some correspondence she filed the present suit for (1) a declaration that the assessment of her answer paper in Sanskrit and award of 90...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom32; (1964)66BOMLR450; [1964(9)FLR158]; ILR1965Bom52; (1966)IILLJ31Bom
(1) This is an appeal by a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He was working as a carpenter with the respondent. While removing the centering etc. of a chaija it collapsed and fell on him and he was seriously injured. He was in hospital for seven months. The Doctor gave a certificate that the disability was 65%. The appellant claimed compensation under the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,185/- relying on this certificate. The respondent denied that the injury was caused by reason of the employment and that he acted contrary to instructions. He also attributed his own negligence in the doing of the work and pleaded that he had paid in the aggregate a sum of Rs.2850/- to the appellant.(2) The learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, that the respondent was liable and he had not proved that the amount of Rs.2850/- was paid by him to the appellant. He held that the appellant fell within the wage group of ...
Tag this Judgment!