Mumbai Court March 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. Framji H. Commissariat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1967
Reported in: [1967]64ITR588(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The assess and his brother had equal shares in an immovable property situate at Bank Street Bombay. On the 26th of September, 1956, each of the assessee and his brother created a trust in favour of his nephew of the undivided half share which each of them possessed in the said immovable property. In the assessee assessment for the assessment year 1957-58, for which the corresponding accounting year was the financial year ending 31st March, 1957, the assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 6,045 which represented the income of the property conveyed by him in trust for the benefit of his nephew, should be excluded from his income. The Income-tax officer refused to do so on the ground that the said income would be liable to be included in the assessee assessment under the provisions of section 16 (3) (a) (iv) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax officer and dismissed the assessee appeal. In the further, a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Lady Ratanbai Mathuradas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR504(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. On 1st October, 1944, Lady Ratanbai Mathuradas Vissanji of Bombay created a trust of 235 ordinary shares of Vishnu Cotton Mills of the face value of Rs. 100 each (to which was later added ascertain deposit amount) in favour of her son, Pratapsinh, his wife, Pushpabai, and children. By this document she had first of all created an interest in the income in favour of Pratapsinh, her son, and after his lifetime in favour of Pushpabai, her daughter-in-law, and after the lifetime of the survivor of the two in favour of their four children upon certain terms, to which we shall presently refer. After the trust was in operation for nearly eleven years, the beneficiaries, Pratapsinh and his wife, Pushpabai, executed a deed of release on 3rd April, 1955, whereby they completely relinquished their right, title, and interest under the deed of trust dated 1st October, 1944. They merely declared that they 'do and each of them both hereby relinquish, release, surrender the right, title...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR649
Chitale, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision application are: one Tarabai Tukaram Kumbhar was admitted to the Central Mental Hospital at Poona en July 1, 1964. Admittedly her husband's annual income is Rs. 1,416. It is also not disputed that if the income of the lunatic or his or her guardian is less than Rs. 2,160 per year, the liability to maintain the lunatic falls either on the Municipal Corporation or on the State Government. The facts found, which are not disputed before me, are that the lunatic's husband resides, in Bombay and is employed in Bombay. His wife-the lunatic-resided with him from June 1958 to December 1959. Thereafter she resided either at Shewari which is her husband's village, or at Saswad which is her father's place. After passing the reception order, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Poona, issued notice to the Bombay Municipal Corporation asking it to produce evidence with regard to the income of the lunatic and her husband. The Bombay Municipal Corp...
Narayan Gopal Mhatre Vs. Shankar Sitaram Sontakke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR699; 1968MhLJ30
Patel, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is one of interpretation of the provisions of the Tenancy Act.2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows :The land in dispute is situated at Panchapakhadi, a village in Thana District. It belonged originally to one Ardeshir Meherwanji Daruwalla. The land was purchased by the plaintiff on February 13, 1956, under exh. 23. At the time of the purchase the father of the defendant-the appellant before us-was a tenant and after his death the defendant became the tenant. On March 22, 1956, the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy by the end of March 957, and followed it up by this suit for a declaration of his title and for possession, which he filed on July 30, 1957.3. The Tenancy Act, 1939, was applied to this area and the defendant's father was, therefore, recorded as protected tenant. That Act was replaced by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which also gave the tenants protection o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR50(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The questions, which have been referred to us on this reference, relate to the taxability under section 10(5A) of a certain amount received by the assessee-company as compensation on the termination of its managing agency. The assessee is a private limited company now in voluntary liquidation. It was incorporated in June, 1945, and was formed by the conversion of an erstwhile partnership firm into a private limited company. This partnership firm had entered into a managing agency agreement with a public limited company called 'The Century Spinning and . 'On the 15th June, 1933. Under the said agreement, the managing agency was to run for a period of 21 years certain and thereafter until either the managing agents resigned their office or the company removed them from the office by a resolution passed at its special meeting. It was provided under the said agreement that the managing agents were to receive a regular monthly remuneration of Rs. 6,000 and if the said remun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›