Mumbai Court January 1965 Judgments
Chidambaram Mulraj and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR206(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a joint reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, wherein two questions of law have been referred to us - one at the instance of the assessee, and the other at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. The assessee before us is one M/s. Chidambaram Mulraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., and the assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1955-56, the relevant accounting year being one commencing from 1st July, 1953, and ending with 30th June, 1954. The assessee's only source of income for the relevant year was the managing agency of Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited. It was acquired by the assessee in 1944 from E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs. After acquiring it from E. D. Sassoon, the assessee entered into a separate managing agency agreement with the managed company for a period of 17 years from the date of the said agreement. The price paid by the assessee-company...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Chhotalal Lallubhai Vs. the Charity Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR432
Bachawat, J.1. One Jhaverehand Dahyabhai Shah died in 1916, leaving a will dated August 6, 1915. He was a resident of Vejalpore in the suburbs of Broach and a Ladva Shrimali Bania by caste. He professed the Jain religion, and believed in the tenets of the Swetambar Murti Pujak sect of Jains. By Clause (7) of the will, he directed his executors to spend out of the earnings of his- shop every year during the life-time of his niece, Bai Jakore, the amounts mentioned below on the following religious objects:(1) Rs. 100 for feeding cattle with grass, fodder, oil cakes etc., in the Broach Pinjrapole.(2) Ks. 100 for Jiva-daya Khata (fund for kindness to animals).(3) Rs. 25 for offering flowers for the worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at Vejalpore, Broach.(4) Rs. 200 for providing food to Shravak pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana.(5) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Girnar.(6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at Mount Abu.(7) Rs. 250 for providing cere...
Tag this Judgment!A. Phiroj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR403; [1966]59ITR645(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. On a requisition by the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of the case referring the following question which it was directed to refer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the application for registration was rightly rejected by the income-tax authorities on the ground that there was no instrument of partnership ?' 2. The question arises out of the proceedings relating to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51, for which the relevant accounting year was the year ended on 31st December, 1949. The business of the assessee was of exporting raw wool, produced in Rajasthan, to England and America. It also owned a factory for ginning and pressing wool, an ice factory and a flour mill at a place in the erstwhile Indian State of Palanpur. The States in which the assessee was carrying on its busi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Ciba Pharma Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR792; [1965]57ITR428(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and is in respect of the five reference applications made to the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, the accounting years being the respective previous calendar years. After consolidation of these five reference applications relating to the aforesaid assessment years, two questions of law have been referred to this court. The first question is common for all the five years and the second question is common only for three assessment years, viz. 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. Facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : The assessee-company, Messrs. Ciba Pharma Private Limited, Bombay hereinafter referred to as the 'Ciba Pharma', is a cent per cent. Indian subsidiary of Ciba Limited, Basle (Switzerland), hereinafter referred to as 'the Ciba Basle.' Ciba Basle deals in drugs, medicines, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biological pro...
Tag this Judgment!Ambabai Janhavibai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR291; 1965MhLJ462
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioners were the Inamdars of two Inam villages Vinehur and Sayakhedc in Niphad Taluka. The Inams were abolished by the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. In each of the two villages the Inamdars were in actual possession of some Kuran lands. These lands were not sown or cultivated, but grass grew naturally in these lands. The Inamdars used to graze their cattle on these lands and they also used to sell the grass and realised income from it. As the lands were in possession of the petitioners, they were shown as the occupants of the lands. The Collector subsequently felt that they had wrongly been shown as occupants, as in his opinion the lands vested in Government under Section 7 of the Act. A mutation entry was, therefore, made deleting the names of the petitioners. This was objected to by the petitioners. An inquiry was then held under Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code in order to decide whether the lands vested in the Government under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Mulji Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR484
Naik, J.1. The appellant, who would hereafter be called the accused, was convicted under Section 471 read with Section 394(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 201, in default, to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. The accused has preferred an appeal from the order of conviction and sentence. It was noticed that the vires of Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was called in question, and, therefore, a notice was issued to the Advocate-General. The learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State as also on behalf of the Advocate-General. 'When the matter came up for hearing before me sitting singly, a request was made by Mr, Ganatra on behalf of the accused, and also by the learned Government Pleader that, in view of the importance of. the question involved, the case may be referred to a Division Bench. Accordingly, the criminal appeal has been referred to a Division Bench, and, that is how, the matter h...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar Bhagwandas Rendheria Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Bom163; (1966)68BOMLR614; 1967CriLJ720
Naik, J.(1) This is an application by the detenu under S. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Art 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of detention passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay on 2nd November, 1965. The order states that the Commissioner was satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community. It is necessary to detain him in exercise of the powers under R. 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. The petitioner has alleged as follows:(2) He is a peace-loving young man of 25 years. He is a partner in the firm which is run under the name and style 'New Pioneer Medical Supply Co.' which carries on business in the purchase and sale of drugs in a shop situate on the Princess Street. The other partner of the firm is the petitioner's father who is an old man of 65 years. The petitioner says that he...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwarasaro Dajibarao Ghuge Vs. Vallabhdas Sheonarayan Sharam and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom149; (1965)67BOMLR708; ILR1966Bom268; 1966MhLJ57
Kotval, J.(1) We care concerned in this special civil application with a motion of no -confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner Vishwasrao Dajibarao Ghuge who was the Chairman on the Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon Taluq Washim, district Akola. The panchayat Samiti Malegaon, it isn't in dispute consist of 14 members and 2 associate members under S. 57 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 [No V of 1962] [hereinafter referred to as the Act] The petitioners was elected Chairman of the panchayat Samiti on 7-8-1962, and less than two years thereafter on 11-5-1964 a no - confidence motion was attempted to be oven against him, but that motion was for reason unknown withdrawn on 22-5-1964. Theater a fresh notice is no - confidence motion under S. 72 of the Act on was again given on 24-10-1964 by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 13. A meeting was convened by the petitioners for 1-11-1964. At that meeting according to the respondents Nos 1 to 6...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay Vs. Meher (M.R.) (industrial Tribuna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ580Bom
Chainani, C.J.1. In an industrial dispute between the petitioners and their employers, respondent 2, which has been referred to the industrial tribunal, respondent 1, an application for interim bonus had been made by the union. From the roznama it appears that this application was kept for hearing on 12 September, 1963. On that date Sri Phadke appeared for respondent 2. Sri Joshi appeared for the union and prayed for an adjournment, since Sri Mehta, who generally used to appear on behalf of the union was out of Bombay. Sri Phadke raised no objection to the prayer for adjournment. The matter was therefore adjourned to 21 September, 1963. On that date Sri Phadke appeared for respondent 2. An objection was then raised to his appearance. The tribunal held that if the union wanted to object to his appearance, it should have done so at the first hearing of the matter and that it was too late for the union to object to his appearance. The tribunal therefore, rejected the application made by t...
Tag this Judgment!S.F. Engineer and ors. (a Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR394; [1965]57ITR455(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us under section 66(I) of the Indian income-tax Act, 1922, is : 2. Whether, in the computation of its business profits under section 10, the assessee-firm is entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 15,172 ?' 3. The assessee-firm consists of three partners and was brought into existence solely for the purpose of constructing a building and selling the same. The firm acquired a piece of land, on which the building was to be constructed, in September, 1946. Immediately after its construction it let it out to the government of India with effect from 15th November, 1954, and, ultimately sold it to the Government in September, 1955. This business venture of the assessee-firm resulted in some profit, which came to be assessed in the assessment year 1956-57 on the assessee in the status of an unregistered firm. Now, the assessee-firm having started with an initial capital of Rs. 60,000 had not sufficient fu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »