Mumbai Court February 1966 Judgments
Beharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR212(Bom)
Tambe, C.J.1. In compliance with the requisition made by this court, the Tribunal has stated the case raising two questions under sub-section (2) of section 66 of the Act. The assessee had taken out a notice of motion praying that the Tribunal be directed to submit further supplementary statement of the case incorporating therein certain documents which the assessee wanted the Tribunal to include and which the Tribunal has not included. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee was not pressing the notice of motion. 2. We are here concerned with the three assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, the relevant accounting period being the financial years ending on 31st March, 1949, 31st March, 1950, and 31st March, 1951. The assessee, Messrs. Beharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as B. R. C. Mills, was at the material time doing the business of running a textile mill in which it was manufacturing yarn and cloth and selling it. The...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Savchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR133(Bom)
Tambe, C.J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, Shri Chhaganlal Savchand of Aden. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee is dead and his legal representatives, Jayantilal Chhaganlal, his son, and Parvatibai Chhaganlal, his widow, be brought on record. By consent of parties they are brought on record. We would be referring to Shri Chhaganlal Savchand of Aden as the assessee. We are here concerned with the two assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51. In both these years the assessee has been taxed in the status of a non-resident. During the years of assessment the business conducted by the assessee was wholesale business in woollen and cotton cloth. 2. The question that arises is whether any income, in whole or in part, accrued in the taxable territories in respect of certain transactions of purchase of cloth from dealers in foreign countries like Japan and other countri...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR176(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised in this reference related to the expenses of the litigation of a suit and appeal filed by a shareholder of the assessee-company against the assessee and its board of directors. The assessee-company claimed the said expenses as an allowable deduction under section 10(2) (xv). Its claim, however, has been disallowed by the income-tax authorities and also by the Tribunal. The assessee is a public limited company. It has large shareholdings of several other companies and it holds controlling interest in some of them. Its business consists of investing its moneys in other companies and deriving income from dividends from those subsidiary companies and distributing the same amongst the shareholders. One of the shareholders of the assessee-company was Ratanchand Khimchand Motishaw. On the 14th of April, 1952, he wrote a letter to the managing agents of the assessee-company intimating to them his intention of raising assessee-company at the time of the annu...
Tag this Judgment!Jokhiram Ramchandra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1966
Reported in: [1966]61ITR693(Bom)
Tambe, C.J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee. The assessee is a partnership firm registered for purposes of income-tax under the Income-tax Act, and carrying on wholesale cloth business. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1956-57, the relevant accounting period being October 27, 1954, to November 14, 1955 (S. Y. 2011). In the course of its business, the assessee had, from time to time, borrowed money from banks jointly by way of mutual accommodation. On December 10, 1949, the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh jointly with another firm, Sadasukh Gambhirchand of Calcutta. The said firm, Sadasukh Gambhirchand, consisted of two partners : Sadasukh Gambhirchand and Dawood Dayal Ramchandra Kothari. Out of Rs. 1 lakh borrowed form the Bank of India, the assessee-firm took Rs. 50,000 and remaining Rs. 50,000 were taken by Sadasukh Gambhirchand. The said firm, Sadasukh Gambhirchand, failed...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR34(Bom)
Tambe, C.J.1. The assessee is a public limited company doing business in chemicals. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the account period being July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957. The assessee-company maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. On the basis of this system, whenever the company incurred any liability on account of the wages, salary and bonus that became due and payable to its employees, it had claimed allowance or deduction in respect of such trading liability in the various prior years even though the amounts had not been in fact paid to the employees concerned. For this purpose the company had made suitable entries in its account books. In respect of the assessment of these various prior years, the company had claimed deductions in respect of these various amounts, which had become due and payable by way of salary, wages and bonus to its employees on the ground that the assessee-company had incurred a liability in respect of them. In view of the merca...
Tag this Judgment!Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Company Ltd. Vs. Prafullacha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: 1966MhLJ1161
1. All the six revision applications arise out of the prosecutions for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the scheme framed thereunder. 2. The applicant here is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Along with the Company six directors of the company including the resident director were prosecuted. There were six cases filed by the Provident Fund Inspector against the applicant-company and the six directors. The trial Magistrate convicted all the accused in each of those cases holding them guilty under Para. 76(c) of the scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and sentenced to company as well as the six directors to various sentences of fine, excepting the original accused 5, Solao, who was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Against the decisions of the trial Magistrate, the company as well as the directors filed appeals before the Assistant Judge, Nagpur. The Assistant Judge dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. Vs. Prafullachandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom126; (1966)68BOMLR689; 1967CriLJ605; [1967(14)FLR212]; (1967)ILLJ153Bom
ORDER(1) All the six revision applications arise out of the prosecutions for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed thereunder.(2) The applicant here is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Along with the Company six directors of the company including the Resident Director were prosecuted. There were six cases filed by the Provident Fund Inspector against the applicant company and the six directors. The trial Magistrate convicted all the accused in each of these cases holding them guilty under paragraph 76 (c) of the Scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds Act and sentenced the company as well as the six directors to various sentences of fine, excepting the original accused No. 5 Solao, who was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months.(3) Against the decisions of the Trial Magistrate, the company as well as the directors filed appeals before the Assistant Judge, Nagpur. The Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Bom127; (1966)68BOMLR941; 1968CriLJ453
Naik, J.1. These two cases arise out of the same judgment and therefore can be disposed of by a common judgment. The case for the prosecution may be briefly outlined as follows : In the village of Minnakkal in Salem district in Madras State there lived an old poor widow called Perumai. She had five daughters and in the present case we are concerned with the third daughter by name Palaniammal alias Panniakkal alias Pappal, whose sudden death under mysterious circumstances has led to the instant prosecution. Palaniammal was married to one Kuppanna gounder of Minnakkal about seven years back. About three years prior to the incident, she had separated from her husband and had come to stay with her mother Perumai. It appears that some arrangement was arrived at between Palaniammal and her husband Kuppanna in which the latter had agreed to pay her maintenance. Kuppanna had married a second wife, presumably after giving divorce to Palaniammal. It further appears that Kuppanna had stopped payi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhausa Ganusa Pawar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR75(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The reference arises out of the assessment made upon the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1956-57 in the status of an unregistered firm and a penalty of Rs. 3,400 imposed by the Income-tax Officer under the provisions of section 46(1) on account of the assessee's default to pay the amount of tax as demanded by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The relevant account year for the assessment year 1956-57 was S. Y. 2011 from October 27, 1954, to November 14, 1955. The partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Bhausa Ganusa Pawar & Co., which carried on business during the whole of this account year as well as certain prior years, consisted of four partners, who were : (1) Shri R. S. Pawar, (2) Shri D. S. Pawar, (3) Shri A. S. Pawar and (4) Shri G. R. Pawar. Ever since its formation in the year 1946, or thereabouts, this firm had been granted registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act up to the assessment year 1955-56. On 3rd February, 1956, that is, some...
Tag this Judgment!Umedmal Deviji Oswal Vs. K. Chopda and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Bom514; 1967MhLJ625
(1) A short but interesting question of law as to the true meaning and effect of the exception to the first proviso to Sections 50 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') arises in these three revision applications. The facts out of which the three revision applications arise are similar for the material purposes, and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. The petitioners in all these revision applications are the landlords and they had filed suits to recover possession of the suit premises from the respondents who were their tenants. In all these cases the trial Court had decreed the suits in favour of the landlords and had directed the respondents-tenants to deliver possession of the suit premises to the landlords. The tenants preferred appeals against the decrees made by the trial Court. The learned Assistant Judge, Kolaba, heard all the appeals and accepted the contention m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »