Mumbai Court September 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.
Chudaman Narayan Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Bom1; (1968)70BOMLR383; 1969CriLJ105; ILR1969Bom194; 1968MhLJ620
Chandrachud, J.1. These are two companion revision applications from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dismissing the revision applications filed by the petitioner against two orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon. The facts leading to the revision applications before us are as follows:2. Chudaman Narayan Patil, who is the petitioner in these revision applications, was employed in the Revenue Department of the Government of Maharashtra and at the material time he was working as a Special Recovery Officer in the Jalgaon People's Co-operative Bank Limited. He worked in this capacity from the 20th of January 1962 to the 3rd of October 1962. It was found that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 583 which was entrusted to him during this period. He was accordingly prosecuted under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1963 and was found guilty of that offence. He was sent...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Cotton Textiles Export P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR539(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question of law that has been referred for our decision in this case is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's income is exempt under section 4 (3) (i) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The circumstances under which the question arises are briefly as follows : The assessee is the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council, which was registered as a company on the 4th October, 1954. The Government of India exempted the company from adding the word 'Limited' after it by virtue of a notification No. 29 (160)-CL/54 dated September 24, 1954, promulgated under their powers under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act. 3. The reason for the exemption is found in the objects and purposes for which the Council was established. Its principal general object, as stated in its memorandum of association, so to be promote, support, protect, maintain and increase the export of cloth and yarn, but inter alia, it was a body which undertook many other act...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Pannalal Narottamdas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR667(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised on this reference is : 'Whether the penalties totalling Rs. 31,302 paid in breach of the Sea Customs Act in respect of imports of stock-in-trade, but on bills of lading purchased in good faith, is a proper deduction under section 10 (1) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing, inter alia, in gum. In the course of its business it purchased bills of lading and other shipping documents from certain parties in respect of some consignments of gum imported by them from Africa. When the goods arrived in India and were sought to be cleared through customs by the assessee on the basis of the documents purchased by it, it was found that the imports were unauthorised and the goods were liable to be confiscated and a penalty was liable to be imposed under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. The assessee paid an amount of Rs. 31,302 as and by way of penalty for saving the goods from being confiscated. These penalties were paid b...
State Vs. Munafkha Lukmankha Musalaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Bom311; (1968)70BOMLR69; 1968CriLJ1054
(1) The point that arises in this revision application is whether an order passed by an appellate Court setting aside the order of conviction of the trial Court and directing a retrial can be said to be the proper order.(2) Accused No. 1 was the servant of accused No. 2 who was the owner of a shop. In that shop 20 bags of cement were found stocked when a search was taken by P. S. I. On 11-3-1965. The bags were seized and both the accused were charged for contravention of clause (9), (13) and (!4) of the Bombay Cement Control Order of 1959 punishable under section 24 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 and also for the contravention of clause 3 of Cement Quality Control Order 1962, punishable under section 7(1)(a) (ii) read with section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The trial Court convicted accused No. 2 under section 24 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act as well as under section 7(1)(a)(ii) read with section 3 of the Essential Commodities ...
Kevaldas Ranchhodddas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR842(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The following question has been referred for our decision under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act : 'Whether, in the course of reassessment proceedings properly initiated under the provisions of clause (a) of section 34(1) of the Act, the assessee can claim the revision of the loss of Rs. 4,49,650 that was determined in the original assessment which had otherwise become final and conclusive so far as he was concerned ?' 2. The assessee is the karta of a Hindu undivided family and in the assessment year 1948-49, corresponding to the account year Samvat 2003, he was assessed under section 23 on 16th June, 1952, in respect of his income from the business of speculation which he carried on both at Bombay and at Indore among other businesses. Later, the Income-tax Officer came to know that the assessee had suppressed speculation profits to the extent of about Rs. 30,000. He, therefore, issued a notice against the assessee under section 34(1) (a) of the Indian Income-...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Bai Ratanbai Gordhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR1(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question, which has been referred to us on this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, arises out of the assessments made for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60, the relevant previous years for which were the calendar years 1955 to 1958. In all these years the assessee has been assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The Hindu undivided family consists of two members, viz., Bai Ratanbai Gordhandas, the adoptive mother, and Ranjitsinh, the adopted son. Gordhandas, the deceased husband of Bai Ratanbai, and his brother Pratapsinh obtained properties movable and immovable in equal share under the will of their father, Karsondas Madhavdas, who died in September, 1921. After the death of the father, Gordhandas and his brother enjoyed the properties obtained by them under the will of their father as undivided co-owners until the 26th of August, 1924, when Gordhandas died. On his death, his share in the properties was inherited by his ...
Allied Publishers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR546(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question referred under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act for our decision in the present case is as follows : 'Whether, on a proper construction of sections 10(2) (vi), 10(3) and 10(5), where an asset is partially used for purposes of business, proportionate depreciation can be calculated (a) by taking proportionate part of the cost of the assets, or (b) by deducting from the original cost of the asset only the actual depreciation allowed for part user ?' 2. The facts upon which this question arises are as follows : We are concerned here with the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee is engaged in the publishing trade and for its purposes owned three cars as one of its business assets. These cars, however, were also being used partially for the personal use of the directors of the company. There is no dispute that for this personal use the proportionate user for non-business purposes which has been computed at one-third, is correct. In the past years the pr...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Suleman and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR94(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. In this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Bombay the question for our decision is : 'Whether the inference of the Tribunal that, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had valued its investments at cost in the past, with such over-valuation of Rs. 68,583 over the market price, there was a smallness of profit that justified the non-declaration of dividends in that year for purpose of section 23A is legal ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company which at one time was dealing in cotton, but in the year of account, Samvat year 2013, the finding is that it was carrying on the business of dealing in and holding of investments as its main business. It is also not in dispute that it is a company to which the provisions of section 23A apply. 3. At the end of the accounting year the investments of this company were shown in the balance-sheet at their original cost. The market value on the same date was, however, less by Rs. 68,583. The order to arrive at...
S.C. Cambatta and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR463(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company, which carried on, inter alia, the business called 'The Eros Theatre & Restaurant', which was comvmenced in the year 1938. The assessee transferred the said business on the 1st of October, 1943, to Eros Theatre & Restaurant Ltd., another private limited company formed with a capital of Rs. 7,91,100 divided into 7,911 shares of Rs. 100 each. 7,901 shares fully paid up were held by the assessee in full satisfaction of the goodwill and other assets and liabilities and the remaining 10 shares were distributed amongst the members of the Cambatta family. The sum of Rs. 7,90,100, which was received by the assessee in the form of the fully paid up shares as consideration for the transfer, was adjustified in the assessee's accounts books as follows : Rs.Sundry assets 1.28,968Stock-in-trade 40,000Books Debts 100 Rs 1,69,069Capital Reserve 6,21,032 --------- 7,90,100 --------- In the books of the transfer, viz., the Eros Theatre and Res...
Velji Deoraj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR708(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The following two question, which arise out of the Tribunal's order relating to the reassessment of the assessee under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 1950-51, have been referred to this court by the Tribunal on a requisition under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the discretion of the Tribunal was judicially exercised in refusing to admit the important evidence in the form of the bank certificate produced by the assessee in respect of this case, that the money had been received by the assessee from Aden in approved manner and (2) Whether there is any evidence on the record to justify the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the sum of Rs. 95,483 (Rupees ninety-five thousand for hundred and eighty-three) forming part of the moneys credited in the account of the non-resident, Maneklal Bhanji of Aden, in S. Y. 2005 in the assessee's books of ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »