Mumbai Court April 1964 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.
Azam Shah Vs. M.R. Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Bom76; (1964)66BOMLR605; ILR1964Bom843
Abhyankar, J. (1) This order will also dispose of Special Civil Applications Nos. 35 and 43 of 1963 arising out of the same order. The latter two petitions are, however, not pressed and are dismissed with costs.(2) Special Civil Application No. 435 of 1962 is filed by one Azimsha. Azimsha was a tenant of field survey No. 35, having a total area of 28 acres and 29 gunthas. One Pandurang was a tenant of field survey No. 231/1. Azimsha was inducted on land as tenant in the year 1954-55, whereas Pandurang became a tenant in 1951-52. Both these fields along with some property was part of a joint family property, of which one Vasantrao and his mother Manoramabai (respondent No.4 in this petition) were members. There were other persons who had interest in this property. One Indirabai commenced a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family property (Civil suit NO. 10-A of 1944) in the Civil Court. To this suit Shripatrao (husband of respondent No.4 Manoramabai a...
Hira Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR103(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. On an application by the assessee under sub-section (I) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted a statement of the case raising the following three questions of law : '(a) Whether the proceeds of sale in the first category aforesaid have been received in the taxable territories within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) (b) Whether the proceeds of sale in the second category aforesaid have been received in the taxable territories within the meaning of section 4(i)(a) (c) Whether the proceeds of sale in the third category aforesaid have been received in the taxable territories within the meaning of section 4(i)(a) ?' 2. It is not in dispute that the profits included in the sale proceeds of the aforesaid sales falling in the three categories would be taxable only in the event the sale proceeds were received in the taxable territories. It is also not in dispute that the areas within the then Native States in existence in the assessment ...
Kudilal Govindram Seksaria and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR653(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50 for which the account year was Maru Year 2004-2005, notices were issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 22(4) on the 12th October, 1953, and on the 21st December, 1953. By the said notices the Income-tax Officer had called upon the assessee to furnish accounts, documents and information in respect of the items specified by him in a letter accompanying each of the notices. The assessee failed to comply fully with the said notices and the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under section 23(4) on the 28th January, 1954. On the 1st March, 1954, the assessee filled an application under section 27 for setting aside the best judgment assessment under section 23(4). It was alleged in the said application by the assessee that he had complied with the requisition of the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer and the best judgment assessment, therefore, was not justified. The application was re...
Shankarlal Dhondiram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR435(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (I) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee before us is a Hindu undivided family known as 'Shri Shankarlal Dhondiram'. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1952-53, the previous year being Samvat year 2007. Facts giving rise to this reference, in brief, are as under. 2. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Hindu undivided family is the owner of an oil mill, namely, Shankarlal Ratanlal Oil Mills. The said oil mill was, prior to the year of assessment, given on lease to a partnership firm of which the partners were Shankarlal Dhondiram, Ratanlal Dhondiram and one Bansilal Chunilal. Shankarlal and Ratanlal are brothers and are also members of the aforesaid Hindu undivided family. The terms on which the aforesaid three partners were carrying on the partnership business are incorporated in a deed of partnership dated the 17th of January, 1961, which is annexure 'D' to the statement of case. The said deed d...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South Vs. Jagannath Narsingdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR128(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question, which arises for consideration on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, is :'Where the assessee is entitled to claim a set-off of Rs. of 13,831, that being his share of loss in business carried on by an unregistered firm, against the profits of his personal business ?' 2. The few facts necessary to be stated are as follows : The assessee is an individual carrying on business as commission agents in certain commodities. He also trades on his own account in kapas, which he sells after converting it into lint and cotton seeds. Besides this business, which the assessee was carrying on in his individual capacity, he also carried on some business in kapas in partnership with one Chinna Venkayya Vithoba of Umri. In the relevant assessment year 1953-54 for which the accounting year was the year ending October 18, 1952, the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 14,189 in his individual business. ...
Pohoomal Brothers (Silk Shop) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR112(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. BY an order under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), this court directed the Tribunal to refer to us the following two questions of law which arose out of the out of the order made in appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the petitioner-firm was entitled to deduct from their taxable income, the loss suffered by them due to their stock-in-trade and book debts amounting to Rs. 1,94,495 being lost by the action of Japanese authorities in July, 1941, by way of trading loss or loss of revenue nature (2) Whether the petitioner-firm was entitled in law to claim the amount of the said loss suffered by them converted into Indian currency at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of such loss ?' 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is doing business in silk in different parts of the world, its head office being at Bombay. In...
Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR470(Bom)
Kotwal, J.1. The question originally referred for the opinion of the High Court on 26th September, 1952, when the reference was first made was as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) are applicable to the petitioners ?' 2. This question as originally framed has come back to this court after a chequered career although it was once reframed by this court. The circumstances under which the question arises may be briefly stated as follows : 3. The Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd., who was the applicant for the reference, was originally incorporated on 28th February, 1929, as a public limited company. This company had a share capital of rupees ten lakhs divided into 10,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. In this company, there were prior to 14th November, 1941, eight directors of whom one Maganlal Parbhudas held 6,344 shares. Maganlal Parbhudas had five sons, Ravindra, Surendra, Bipinchandra, Harishchandra a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›