Mumbai Court February 1967 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Dhurmal Bajaj and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR244(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question of law that has been referred for decision is : 'Whether the firm, being genuine, is entitled to registration for the assessment years 1953-54 and/or 1954-55 on the basis of the deed dated April 14, 195 ?' 2. On 11th September, 1950, three persons named below entered into a document of partnership. They were : 1. Devidutt Bhurmal Bajaj. 2. Nanibhai (mother of No. 1 above). 3. Mahavirprasad Latta. 3. They carried on the business under the name and style of Messrs. Dhurmal Bajaj at Bombay. On 14th April, 1953, they entered into a document of partnership which gives rise to the present reference. The preamble of that document recites that the erstwhile partners have 'agreed by mutual consent to admit Ramnivas Dhurmal, a minor, to the benefits of this partnership on the under-mentioned share and whereas it is now desired to place on record the terms of their said partnership, now this indenture witnesseth the as under...' 4. Clause 5 is as follows : 'By mutual...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Devidas Vithaldas and Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR388(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The two question that have been referred for our decision are as follows : '1. Whether the aforesaid sums of Rs. 14,653, Rs. 14,560, Rs. 17,412 and Rs. 16,528 constitute part of the assessee's income of the assessment year 1957-58 to 1960-61, respectively 2. If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the said sums are deductible in the aforesaid assessments ?' 2. The assessee is a firm, Messrs. Devidas Vithaldas & Co. The facts upon which the reference arises are as follows : Padamsi Haridas was a chartered accountant and he was carrying on his business under the name and style of Devidas Vithaldas & Co. He took into partnership with him one A. K. Parikh, but at the time when this partnership was entered into, Padamsi reserved to himself the right to the entire goodwill of the business. Padamsi and Parikh continued their partnership till 31st December, 1950, on which date Padamsi retired leaving Parikh to carry on the business. On 2nd January, 1951 an agreement was e...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Modern Flats Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR67(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The short question that we are called upon to answer in this reference is whether Messrs. Modern Flats Private Ltd., Bombay, the assessee, are liable to be taxed under the head 'Income from property' assessee, are liable to be taxed under the section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of certain property at Colaba, Bombay. The history of this property is briefly as follows : On the 2nd June, 1948, one Govindji Lalji Jobanputra of Bombay entered into an agreement with the then Governor of Bombay in respect of a plot of land upon certain terms. On 16th July, 1948, he also purchased two other contiguous plots from Meherbai Nanabhai Nusserwanji Saher for a sum of Rs. 12,500. On 9th November, 1948, Jobanputra entered into a partnership with four others under the name and style of Varjivandas & Co. This partnership constructed a building on the said plots but before it could be completed they demised such rights as they had to the land and the party built property to m...
D.M. Dahanukar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR280(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question referred on this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is : 'Whether, there was any evidence on which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the petitioner had concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Ac 2. The assessee is a director of the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. and also the managing director of its managing agents, M. L. Dahanukar & Co. Ltd. The assessee held 750 ordinary shares and 500 6% preference shares in the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. At the general meeting held on the 24th September, 1953, the Belvandi Sugar Farm Ltd. Declared dividends on the ordinary and preference shares in respect of the accounting year ended on the 30th September, 1952. The dividends amounts due to the assessee in respect of his ordinary and preference shares came to Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 3,000, respectively. In the financial year 1953-...
Virji Devshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR291(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a consolidated reference arising out of the income-tax assessment for the assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 and the wealth-tax assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, and involves mainly a question relating to the validity of a gift alleged to have been made by the assessee in favour of his minor son on the last day of the account year S. Y. 2008. 2. The assessee was a partner in several registered partnership firms, one of which was M/s. Jethalal Gopalji & Co. At the end of S. Y. 2008 there was to the credits of the assessee's account in the books of the partnership an amount of nearly Rs. 2,60,000. On the last day of the said year, which was October 18, 1952, certain further additions were made to the said account bringing the total to about Rs. 3,16,000 and then that account was debited by an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and an identical amount was credited to a new account opened in the name of his minor son, Madhu Kant, on the same day...
Anna Racek Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR221(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The short question that we are called upon to decide in these two references is whether certain transaction in the purchase and sale of gold bars entered into by the assessee, Mrs. Anna Racek, and her late husband, F. Racek, were entered into as business transactions or as adventure in the nature of trade or commerce or whether they represented merely sales of investments. The facts are as follows. 2. F. Racek was an Austrian citizen doing business in India in hurricane lanterns, petromax lanterns, mantles and other sundry articles. He died on March 15, 1943, and it is not in dispute that the assessee, his widow, has succeeded to his estate. During his lifetime F. Racek amassed considerable wealth and on January 1, 1942, he was possed of over Rs. 21 lakhs. It is not in dispute also that this amount was not connected with his business and was merely his own personal wealth outside the business. He had kept this money intact in various Indian and foreign banks in current ...
Rupchand Hemandsar Panjwani and ors. Vs. Heera Jawaharlal Mirchandani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom100; (1967)69BOMLR587; 1967MhLJ906
Patel, J. (1) These matters came before me while I was sitting as a single Judge. They raised the question of the applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) to appeals pending on the date on which the provisions of Parts II and III came to be applied to the premises, which are subject matter of the proceedings. It was pointed out to me that there were two contradicting decisions of the Single Judges Mr. Justice Naik in Second Appeal No. 738 of 1964, decided on December 14, 1965 Bom took the view that the Rent Act did not apply to all appeal if Parts II and III came to be applied during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. Justice Gokhale held otherwise in a group of Civil Revision Applications Nos, 793, 870 and 1122 of 1963 = : AIR1967Bom514 . He held that it did. Mr. Justice Naik's decision was cited before the learned judge yet the learned Judge held differently. Having regard to the difference...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Tata Locomotive and Engi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR325(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The question of law referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the activities of the assessee in assembling chassis out of C. K. D. (complete knocked down) packs imported from West Germany during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56 amounted to manufacture or production of articles within the meaning of section 15C (2) (ii) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is the Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd., Bombay, and the assessment year is 1955-56 corresponding to the accounting year ending March 31, 1955. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are briefly as follows : 3. The assessee is carrying on business in the manufacture of locomotives and other engineering products. On 28th November, 1953, the company applied for permission to manufacture bus/truck-chassis at their workshop at Jamshedpur in collaboration with the German firm of automobile manufacturers, Messrs. Daimler...
Jivatlal Purtapshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR261(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49, corresponding to S. Y. 2003 as the previous year thereof, the Income-tax Officer had included a sum of Rs. 4,72,500 as part of the branch profits of the assessee arising ar Radhanpur. While that appeal against the assessment order, which, inter alia, challenged the said inclusion of Rs. 4,72,500 was pending, there were negotiations between the assessee and the department with regard to a large number of disputes relating to the income of the assessee in several different kinds of transactions. It appears that as a result of these negotiations, an agreement was arrived at between the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 'L' Range, Bombay, and the assessee, as could be seen from the assessee's letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner dated July 21, 1958, appearing at annexure 'C' to the statement of the case and the letter from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to the asses...
V.D. Angal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom304; (1967)69BOMLR710; (1968)IILLJ177Bom; 1967MhLJ1019
Patel, J. (1) This appeal is by the original plaintiff who has failed substantially in the District Court. The appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff was appointed on March 24, 1955 as Medical Officer in charge of Infirmary Dispensary at Dhulia. Over and above his scheduled salary he was entitled to get Rs. 10 per month on account of the loss of private practice. A Departmental inquiry was held against him by the Collector and he dismissed him from service with effect from November 1, 1955, on 31-10-1955. He raised suit No. 10 of 1957 on 2-1-1957 contending that the order was illegal and ineffective and he continued to be in service. This suit was decreed on January 4, 1958. The appeal to the District Court, being Appeal No. 63 of 1958, was dismissed and a second appeal to this High Court, being Second Appeal No. 1126 of 1959, was dismissed on December 4, 1959, was dismissed on December 4, 1959. The plaintiff was reinstated by an order date July 13, 1960. The pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »