Mumbai Court March 1965 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.
Abhay L. Khatau and ors. (Trustees of L.K. Trust) Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR671; [1965]57ITR202(Bom); 1965MhLJ818
V.S. Desai, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration on the present reference is whether a group of trustees can be assessed to wealth-tax under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the wealth held by them as trustees. This question has been referred to us by the Tribunal under section 27(I) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the form of two questions, which are as follows : '(1) Whether the assessments under the Wealth-tax Act are valid (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the status of the assessee is 'individual' ?' 2. The charging section, which is section 3, of the Wealth-tax Act provides that 'subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged for every assessment year commencing on and from 1st April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'wealth-tax') in respect of the net wealth on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family and company at the rate or rates specified in ...
Tejabai Vs. Shankarrao Baswanappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Bom48; (1965)67BOMLR478; 1966CriLJ131; ILR1966Bom56
Palekar, J. (1) This is a reference by the learned Additional sessions judge, Latur, Arising out of an order passed under S. 488, Cr. P.C. by the learned judicial Magistrate, F.C. Udgir, awarding separate maintenance at the rate of the Rs. 30 per month to the wife. The wife, the Tejabai was married to the shankarrao Baswanappa in about 1954, when she was a minor. Shankarrao has a first she was the time. Tejabai filed the application of under S., 488 Cr P.C on 29-11-1963, alleging that the she was treated well for about a year after the a marriage and that she was ill - treated thereafter, and , finally, beaten and driven out of the hours on 23-11-1963. She therefore claimed maintenance at the husband had an annual to agricultural income of Rs. 3,000 and used to each Rs. 90 p.m. by was of salary as a Talati the allegations of ill - treatments were denied by the husband. He alleged that the Tejabai lived with him for about eight years after he marriage, and that she had left him time of ...
Chiranjilal Tibrewala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR42(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. For the assessment year 1957-58, for which the relevant previous year was the S. Y. 2012 extending from the 15 November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956, the assessee, who was a registered partnership firm, was assessed to a best judgment assessment under section 23(4) for having committed defaults in complying with the notices both under section 22(2) for the filing of a return and under section 22(4) for the production of account books. The notice under section 22(2) was given on the 19th of May, 1957, and no return in compliance with that notice was filed until the assessment was made on the 27th May, 1958. There were in all three notices issued under section 22(4) and the compliance sought under these notices was on the 19th March, 1958, 24th April, 1958, and 26th May, 1958, respectively. The last of these notices was served by affixing. The account books required by this notice under section 22(4) were never produced but on 26th May, 1958, which was the last date for comp...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Pestonji Hormusji Con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR24(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment made upon the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52 and the question which has to be considered is whether the assessee was entitled to the concession under the Part 'B' States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, in respect of the sum of Rs. 14,319 and Rs. 28,097, which were included in the computation of his total income. The assessee, who has been assessed in the status of an individual, derived income from his personal business as well as partnership business in Rajpipla, which is a merged territory and also in several Part 'B' States, such as Rajasthan, Saurashtra and Madhya Bharat. One of such partnership business, which the assessee was carrying on, was as a partner in the registered firm of Pestonji Hormusji & Sons, carrying on business at Jamnagar in Saurashtra. The previous year for the source of the assessee's income from the business of Bhawani Mandi was the financial year ending on 31st March, 1951, while for t...
Hiralal Jeramdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR1(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of secti1on 66 of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant previous year being S. Y. 2011 ended 12th November, 1955. Formerly, the assessee was a partner in a registered firm carrying on business under the name and style of 'Jeramdas Naumal'. The partners of this firm were the assessee, Hiralal, and Jawaharlal, his brother. They had equal shares in the said partnership business; and the business carried on by the assessee was money-lending, cotton and piece-goods, and speculation. In S. Ys. 2007 and 2008, the relevant assessment years being 1952-53 and 1953-54, the partnership suffered losses. The assessee's share of loss determined and apportioned to him in those years amounted to Rs. 99,815 and Rs. 98,152, respectively. As and from 1st August, 1952, the assessee retired from the partnership business and the partnership business as a running concern wa...
i.R. Hingorani Vs. Pravinchandra Kantilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1965
Reported in: (1965)67BOMLR306; 1965MhLJ523
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. These three applications have been heard together, because they raise a common question in regard to the interpretation of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts in application No, 2048 of 1963 are as under. Respondent No. 1 in this application is a member of Shalimar Co-operative Housing Society. As such member he is the holder of a flat on the fifth floor of Shalimar building, which belongs to the society. On. April 24, 1959, there was a leave and license agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, by which respondent No. 1 allowed the petitioner to occupy his flat on payment of monthly compensation of Rs. 250 for a period of eleven months. Respondent No. 1 subsequently revoked the leave granted to the petitioner to occupy the flat and on March 8, 1963, called upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises and also to pay arrears of compensation due from him. As the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›