Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1966]59ITR221(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) at the instance of the assessee, and the answers to the two questions which have been referred to us turn on the construction of the agreement of date 1st June, 1955. 2. The matter arises thus : We are here concerned with the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1955. The assessee is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, carrying on business in dyeing and printing textile goods. The partners of the assessee-firm are two having a moiety in the business - Manilal Narbheram Parekh and Chandulal Narbheram Kothary. By an agreement dated 1st June, 1955, the assessee-firm purported to sell its entire business as a going concern for a sum of Rs. 8,22,001 to a private limited company - Calico Dyeing & Printing Works Limited. The aforesaid stipulated price was paid by the purchaser company partly in cash and partly by allotting fully paid up shares to the partners of the assessee-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR931; 1965MhLJ653
Abhyankar, J.1. The petitioners Shamji and Kisan purchased S.N. 110, having an area of 23 acres and 20 gunthas situate at village Bechkheda, from respondent No. 2 Udhao on foot of a registered sale deed dated February 23, 1957. They were in possession of this property when respondent No. 1 Namdeo filed an application purporting to be made under Section 32 of the new Tenancy Act on May 15, 1959. That application is at page 23 of the Paper Book. In that application Namdeo alleged that he was cultivating the field in dispute as a protected lessee for the year 1951-52 to 1954-55. The field was let out to him by Udhao, respondent No. 2, in his capacity as manager of the joint Hindu family of which his sons Vasant, Shyam and Jayant, respondents Nos. 3 to 5, were also members. Actual lease was given by Vasant who was the eldest son because Udhao was then in service in December 1954, which is obviously a mistake; actual date being November 24, 1954. Vasant sent a notice under Section 9 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1966]59ITR625(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question, which we have to consider on this reference, arises from the assessment order of the assessee as an individual for the assessment year 1952-53, the relevant account year being S. Y. 2007, extending from November 10, 1950, to October 30, 1951. The assessee derived his income as a partner in several firms, one of which was Messrs. National Traders, which did forward business in several commodities including castor seeds. The assessee claimed that in S. Y. 2007 he had himself entered into a few speculative transactions in castor seeds at Veraval and in those transactions he had suffered a loss of Rs. 13,849. According to the assessee these speculative transactions consisted of his purchases of 1,100 khandies of castor seeds on October 3, 1951, and 500 khandies on October 8, 1951, through M/s. Balkrishin Gopalji Sanghvi of Veraval and sale of these 1600 khandies to the same party on the 25th of October, 1951. To establish the genuineness of these transaction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]57ITR270(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee. The question that falls for consideration is the construction of section 28(1)(c) of the Act. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1948-49, the relevant previous year being S. Y. 2003. 2. The assessee is a firm dealing in hessian twine, gunny bags, etc., on wholesale basis. In S.Y. 2003, the Disposal Directorate sold to Laxmichand Govindji, a kariana merchant of Rajkot, 2 lakhs anti-gas water-proof bags under a delivery order dated May, 1947, in the name of L. G. Vaidya (Laxmichand Govindji). The payment of Rs. 1,80,000 for these bags was made by a firm known as Bhivandiwala and Co. on 16th May, 1947. The payment was made by the said firm on behalf of Laxmichand. The next day of payment, Bhivandiwala and Co. on received a sum of Rs. 90,000 from Laxmichand (L. G. Vaidya). The assessee under the power of attorney from the said La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom54; (1965)67BOMLR544
ORDER(1) This Writ Petition raises a question of considerable importance. The question can be given two alternative formulations. Do the government of India have an absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse a passport to a citizen of India no right to get a passport from the government of India.(2) It is common ground that the petitioner is a citizen of India. He says that he is partner of a firm in Bombay which carries onto business of Bankers, Exporters and Importers and also of a firm in Dubai, in the Persian Gulf, which carries on the business of Indent Agents and Importers. I am told that Dubai in part of British protectorate. The petitioner claims, and this is not disputed that passports were granted to him during the period from October 1952 and October 1962 to enable him to make trips to Dubai and certain ports in the Persian Gult. The Last passport issued in favor of the petitioner express on 28th October 1962. On 10th January 1963 the petitioner applied to the Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]57ITR45(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The assessee is one Maneklal Sheth, who having died on 22nd April, 1959, has been represented in the present assessment proceedings, which relate to the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, by his son, the present applicant before us. In the year 1951, the assessee Maneklal had made a gift of 1,184 ordinary and 155 preference shares of Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., to his wife, Bai Laxmibai. The total value of these transfer shares on the date of the transfer was Rs. 69,730. Subsequent to the transfer of these shares by Maneklal to his wife, the preference shares were converted by the company into ordinary shares giving the shareholders 8 ordinary shares for one preference share, with the result that by the end of the year 1954 Bai Laxmibai possessed 2,424 ordinary shares of the mills. On the 1st of August, 1956, Bai Laxmibai sold 2,400 out of the said shares possessed by her for a total price of Rs. 1,54,800 resulting in a capital gain of Rs. 70,860 as compute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]64ITR437(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. In compliance with the requisition of this court, the Tribunal has stated the case under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Income-tax Act on the following two question : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the customs rebate amounting to Rs. 25,170 (rupee twenty-five thousand one hundred and seventy) and Rs. 25,230 (rupee twenty-five thousand two hundred and thirty) received by the assessee was liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee (2) Whether there is any evidence on the record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the customs rebate was not received by the assessee on behalf of a third party and it was a revenue receipt of the assessee ?' 2. We are here concerned with the two assessment year 1952-53 and 1953-54, the relevant assessment years being Maru years 2007/8 and 2008/9. The assessee is a registered firm and, at the material time, was carrying on business in cloth including export of fine and super-fine cloth. There w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR470
Chainani, C.J.(1) The facts in this application are briefly these: There was an open Government land in Ulhasanager Township. In 1949-50 portions of this land were given for temporary use to several displaced persons in odor to enable them to carry on business on 23-1-1950 the Administrator and Managing officer, Ulhasanager Township authorized the petitioner to use a plot of land for the construction of a temporary structure, subject to certain condition two of the which were that the grant was temporary and that the grantee was temperate strict was subject to a short removal notice was when required subject to a short removal notice when required by the Government at owners cost. The petitioner, therefore put up a structure on the plot which he was authorized to occupy. We are informed that the is using this structure for charcoal shop. In 1954-55 the area was demarcated into servile plots and the plots occupied by the petitioner now forms part of plot No. 266. After the plot were dem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR666; [1965]57ITR207(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. In the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60, for which the relevant valuation date was 31st March, 1959, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of certain gold and silver articles under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act. He was allowed exemption in respect of the silver articles, but the exemption was disallowed in respect of the gold articles which were valued at Rs. 51,600. The question which arises for consideration on this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, is : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to exemption from tax in respect of the gold articles valued at Rs. 51,600. in terms of section 5(1)(viii) of the Act ?' 2. The gold articles in question consist of two gold caskets weighing 225 tolas, gold tray of 70 tolas, two gold glasses weighing 42 tolas, a gold cup, saucer and spoons together weighing 32 tolas, and photo-fram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom216
(1) This is an application by the Original plaintiff against the order of the trial court staying the suit for recovery of arrears of Ren. Ejectment and damages.(2) The plaintiff, is a landlord of certain premises in this city. Opponent is a tenant of the those premise. The opponent is described as retried D.I.G. of police resident of wright Town, Jabalpur. According to the plaint averment, the plaintiff purchased the premises under registered sale deed date 12-12-1962 a monthly rental of Rs. 140/- The plaintiff applied to the Rent controller under the C.P. and Berar letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. 1949, for permission to issue a notice terminating the tenancy of the opponent. The Rent controller granted permission on 27-9-1963. Thereafter the plaintiff issue a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant on 1-11-1963 called upon him to evict [sic] the premises at the end of the month. Thereafter the plaintiff filed his suit on 17-12-63. In this suit he claims Rs. 1260 by ...
Tag this Judgment!