Mumbai Court December 1968 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Dwarkadas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1968
Reported in: [1971]80ITR283(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question raised on this reference under Section 66(1) at the instance of the Commissioner relates to the assessment orders for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, for which the relevant previous years were S. Y. 2010 and 2011 extending from November 7, 1953, to October 27, 1954, and October 27, 1954, to November 14, 1955, respectively, and is in the following terms:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the basis of annexures 'A' and 'B' the respondent-firm is eligible for registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. Up to the 6th of July, 1951, a business was carried on in partnership by three persons named Premji, Kamalben and Ramankant. On the 7th of July, 1951, a new firm was constituted having three persons named, Ramankant Dwarkadas, Mulraj Jethabhai and Jaisingh Narandas as partners. A deed of partnership relating to this partnership was executed on the 21st August, 1951. One of the three partners, Jaisin...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Star Engineering Co. (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR283(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The questions revised on this reference founder section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee relate to the assessments for the assessment years 1954-55, 1957-58 and 1958-59 made on the assessee under section 43 as the agent of a foreign entity known as M/s. Veerenigde Erstshandel Maatschappij N. V. ( hereinafter referred to as VEM) carrying on business in Holland. VEM, which arrived on its business in Holland, required iron and manganese ore, which it imported from India. It made its purchase direct from the Indian exporters. Its experience of its dealings with the Indian exporters was not very satisfactory inasmuch as it found that the goods imported were always not according to the specifications and the orders were either not executed or executed too late. In May, 1952, VEM, therefore, arrived at an arrangement with the assessee under which the assessee undertook to study and advise VEM on the possibility of acquisition of iron and ma...
Tag this Judgment!Dhirajlal Girdharlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR657(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether the inference of the Tribunal, that the shares in question constituted the stock-in-trade and that the profit on sale is a trading profit, is legal ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment years 1945-46 and 1946-47 and the account years corresponding to these assessment years are the two financial years March 31, 1945, and March 31, 1946. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which originally consisted of one Girdharlal Trikamlal and his three sons, Dhirajlal, Hiralal and Kirtilal. Girdharlal passed away on 26th July, 1942. 3. During the life time of Girdharlal he was a partner in firm known as Girdharlal Trikamlal & Co. His eldest son, Dhirajlal, was also a partner in that firm. On the death of Girdharlal on 26th July, 1942, that partnership was dissolved and a new firm comprising Dhirajlal and his younger brother, Hiralal, came into existence. That firm took over all the assets and liabilities of the former firm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. K.B.H.M.D.H. Bhiwandiwalla and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: [1971]79ITR467(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The question raised in this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the assessment order for the assessment year 1958-59 corresponding to the previous year ended on 31st March, 1958, and is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that litigation expense amounting to Rs. 34,656 (Rupees thirty-four thousand, six hundred and fifty-six) were an admissible expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and carrier on abkari business. Its head office is in Bombay and it carries on business at several centres. At Wadala and Uran it has a business of manufacturer and sale of liquor at other places such as Bhopal, Ajmer, Jaipur, Raichur and Kolhapur. Its business in liquor at Kolhapur had been in existence since about 1917. In April, 1945, it obtained a licence from the erstwhile State of Kolhapur for the exclusive manufacture and supply of country spirit for a per...
Tag this Judgment!Chainsukhlal Punamchand Meher Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR390; 1969MhLJ646
Vimadalal, J.1. My brother Tulzapurkar has, in this Criminal Revision Application, referred to a Division Bench the question as to whether in a case falling under the provisions of Sections 236 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is permissible for a criminal 'Court to alter the conviction from an offence which is of lesser gravity to an offence of greater gravity, as the question is one which is not directly covered by authority.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner (accused) was working as a medical officer attached to the State Reserve Police Camp Dispensary at Dhulia, and while he was so attached, he was alleged to have committed theft of certain medicines from the store-room of the dispensary of that camp. It appeared from the evidence led in the case that there were two sets of keys of the cupboards lying in the store-room as well as the dispensary from out of which these medicines were alleged to have been removed by the accused, one set remaining with the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Mudbidri Gopal Rao Vs. S.V. Kondaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR418; 1969MhLJ773
Patel, J.1. This appeal was admitted by us on December 6, .1968. At that time we had granted interim stay of the further proceedings and now the notice of motion comes before us for final hearing.2. Originally in the notice of motion stay of the entire proceedings before the respondent was asked for, but now it is confined only to the matter of sale to the sugar company.3. It is firstly argued by Mr. Thakkar, for the appellant, that the rejection of the motion at this stage will frustrate the appeal and the motion, therefore, must be granted. This argument is very often made and is very convenient for the appellant who is usually interested in delaying the proceedings. The fundamental principles of the Civil Procedure 'Code as laid in Order XLII, Rule 5 are that mere admission of an appeal would not amount to a stay and granting of stay of the proceedings under the decree or of execution proceedings depends upon the discretion of the Court which discretion must, of course, be exercised...
Tag this Judgment!Vithaldas Girdharidas Vs. B.L. Shelar, Judicial Member, I.T. Apfellate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: [1980]122ITR859(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The petitioner is one of the sons of one Girdharidas who dies on November 15, 1967, and as such is an accountable person within the meaning of the E.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). He filed a return on July 23, 1969, before the Asst. CED, Akola. The petitioner's case in his return was that the estate was below Rs. 50,000 and, therefore, no duty was payable on the same. However, the Assistant Controller, by his decision dated December 30, 1971, valued the share of the deceased for duty at Rs. 69,210. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal to the Appellate Controller, Akola, who by his decision dated March 12, 1975, allowed the appeal in part. This decision of the Appellate Controller was communicated to the petitioner on June 30, 1975. An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from the decision of the Appellate Controller lies within 60 days under s. 63 of the said Act. The petitioner sent a telegram to the Appellate Tribunal on August 26, 1975, request...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Dharamchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR96(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question which we have to decide in this reference is whether the purported partnership formed by the deed of partnership dated 12th November, 1953, is one which gives rise to a legal partnership and can be registered under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Manilal and Keshavlal were two brothers and they were coparceners in a Hindu undivided family. They entered into a partnership with one Mangalji on 25th October, 1943. That partnership carried on business in grains at village Pimpalgaon under the name and style of Manilal Dharamchand. Then the two families of Manilal and Keshavlal separated by a partial partition between Manilal and Keshavlal. This was on the 24th October, 1946. Each of the two brothers, Manilal and Keshavlal, had sons and their joint undivided families with their male children were being separately assessed in the status of Hindu undivided family with reference to their share of the income from the family firm, Manilal Dhar...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakisan Hiralal Ladhe Vs. Trimbak Maruti Murdare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom397; (1969)71BOMLR465; ILR1969Bom1013; 1969MhLJ664
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise common questions for decision. They can, therefore, be conveniently dealt with together.2. The parties to both the appeals are the same and figure in the same capacities. The appellant and respondent No.2 are brothers. They owned three lands bearing S. Nos.19,20 and 15 situate at village Bhagur in Ahmednagar District. On 5-4-1954 the first two of these lands came to be transferred to respondent No.1 by a conditional sale-deed for a consideration of Rs.5000. Respondent No.2 being then a minor, the sale-deed was executed by the appellant and by Rambhai, the mother of the appellant and respondent No.1, acting as guardian of respondent No.2 A similar conditional sale-deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1 on 1-6-1954 in respect of the third land, viz. S. No.15, for a consideration of Rs.4000. Possession of the lands comprised in the two sale-deeds was delivered to respondent No.1 on the dates of the respective sale-...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Jadhavji and Co., Bombay Vs. Transport and Dock Workers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ123Bom
Madon, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside an award dated 29 December 1964 made by Sri Salim M. Merchant, presiding officer of the Central Industrial Tribunal at Bombay, respondent 2, in an industrial dispute between Kanji Jadhavji & Co. and their workmen. 2. This petition was originally filed by one Velbai Kanji as the sole proprietress of the said Kanji Jadhavji & Co. During the pendency of the petition, the said Velbai died and her legal representative, one Mathuradas Gokuldas, has been brought on the record. The said Kanji Jadhavji & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-concerned ) has been carrying on business for the last over fifty years as stevedores, clearing, forwarding and travel agents and also as contractors of the Central Government and State Governments other public bodies. Transport and Dock Workers' Union, respondent 1, which is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, is a union representing the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »