Mumbai Court February 1968 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. RamnaraIn Kapur and Co. Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR719(Bom)
Kotval, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act for our decision : 'Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the profits of Rs. 52,075 and Rs. 29,035 are only capital gains and not trading profit of the respective assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 is in accordance with law ?' 2. The assessee is Messrs. Ramnarain Kapur & Co. Private Ltd. in which at the material time the members of the family of Ramnarain Kapur held the controlling shares as indicated below : Ramnarain Kapur ... 3,700Ramnath Kapur (son) ... 400K.S. Srinivasa ... 400Miss Lakshmi Kapur and Master ChandraKapur by their father & guardianR.N. Kapur ... 400Air Lines Hotel Ltd .... 100--------5,000-------- 3. The company was by its memorandum of association empowered to carry on in India and else where the business of 'agency in all its branches and to act as managing agents for other companies in India or in any other country or place' (clause 1), to carry on and ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Vs. Parwatibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom275; 1969MhLJ27
ORDER1. The applicant is the defendant against whom one Doma had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered into by the applicant with him. The applicant, on 7-5-1965, entered into an agreement to sell a house No. 1288/1 + 4 in Circle No. 4/6 at Nagpur to the original plaintiff Doma for a sum of Rs. 10750, and accordingly, the applicant-defendant had executed an Isarchitti on the same date. The Isarchitti recites that the applicant had received a sum of Rs. 500 as part payment of the purchase price of Rs. 10750, and that a sale-deed was to be executed within 4 months from the date of the agreement. The original plaintiff Doma, alleging that the defendant had failed to execute a sale-deed as agreed, filed a suit on 28-9-1965 asking for specific performance of the agreement dated 7-5-1965. Unfortunately the original plaintiff Doma died on the same date after the suit was filed by him, Doma died leaving behind his widow Gaurabai and his married daughter Parwatib...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Owning and Administering Central Railway Per General Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom401; (1969)71BOMLR214; ILR1969Bom864; 1968MhLJ797
Deshmukh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India owning and administering the Central Railway as well as the South Eastern Railway. A large part of the fact is not in dispute. The plaintiff no. 1 Messrs, Kalinga Textiles Private Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having their office at Rajgangpur, admittedly booked 100 bales of cotton from Akola on the Central Railway for being delivered at Rajgangpur on the South-Eastern Railway. The railway receipt in that behalf was no. 9208/11 dated 2-6-1957. A complete wagon was hired and allotted for that purpose and it started with the goods train on the same day. The evidence in the case shows, and it is not now in dispute, that fire took place first at Khapri station on 4-2-1957 and the wagon in which the plaintiff no. 1's cotton bales were loaded was set on fire. After some half-hearted attempts to find out the cause of the fire and to try to extinguish it, a decision was taken by the Assistant Station Master, ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Dahanukar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR504(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question referred for out decision under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's case falls under section 34(1)(a) ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and we are concerned with the assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55 both inclusive, the relevant accounting years being the financial years ending 31st March. 3. One Tankwalla had taken on long lease certain open plots of land at Worli in Greater Bombay. These plots were requisitioned under the Defence of India Rule No. 75(1) for the purposes of the military in December, 1942. Later on, the requisitioning was continued under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, for the purposes of the Home Department of the Government of Bombay. The owner of these plots (Tankwalla) had mortgaged them with the ABC Bank Ltd. but that bank went into liquidation and the plots were acquired by the assessee from the li...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay Vs. Trustees of Mrs. Hansabai Tribh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR527(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act are applicable to the trusts dates May 17, 1954, and July 13, 1956, executed by Nanalal Haridas for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61.' 2. The corresponding valuation dates were December 31, 1957, December 31, 1958 and December 31, 1959. The assessees are the trustees of the Messrs. Hansabai Tribhuwandas Trust. Two trusts were created by one Nanalal Haridas on the 17th May, 1954, and 13th July, 1956. So far as the first of the 17th May, 1954, is concerned, the relevant clauses upon which a decision of the question referred depends are clauses 2(a) to 2(e) which were as follows : '(a) To recover the dividends, interests, and income of the trust fund and to pay out of the same the charges for collection and all other outgoings, if any. (b) To pay the balance of such interest, dividends and income here...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Vatsalabai Chandavarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: [1968]69ITR577(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, arising out of the wealth-tax assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, for which the corresponding valuation dates were March 31, 1959, and March 31, 1960, respectively. 2. The dispute involved in the reference relates to whether the right of the assessee to receive a certain payment of Rs. 1,500 per month for her life, excepting certain circumstances, is exempt from the payment of wealth-tax under section 5(1)(vii) of the Wealth-tax Act. 3. The husband of the assessee, Sir Vithal Chandavarkar, was the managing director of Messrs. N. Sirur & Co., Private Ltd, for a number of years under agreements, which were renewed from time to time. The last agreement was of the 18th April, 1957, for a period of five years. Messrs. N. Sirur & Company Pvt. Ltd. were the managing agents of three textile mills, viz., the Mysore Spinning & ., the Minerva Mills Ltd. and the Modern Mills...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Cooper and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC111(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a reference under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, whereby the following questions have been referred to this Court for determination : '(1) Whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and those under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, relating to the levy of tax, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the levy of tax is yearly is correct in law (2) Whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Tribunal erred in holding that Central sales tax is levied for the financial year and not for any other year (3) Whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, inserted under the Government notification dated the 6th November, 1937 (published on the 16th November, 1957), the Tribunal was justifie...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vicco Laboratories
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC169(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax concerns the following question referred to us by the Tribunal :- 'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of entry No. 39 of Schedule B to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that Vicco Vajradanti (tooth-powder) sold by the respondents is not 'toilet article' falling under the said entry ?'2. The respondents are manufacturers of a dentifrice in the form of a powder used for cleaning teeth. It sells in the trade name of Vicco Vajradanti. It does not seem to be disputed that such a powder is used for cleaning teeth. In respect of the turnover of sales of this powder the Sales Tax Officer classified this as falling in the residuary entry No. 80 in Schedule B of the 1953 Act and charged sales tax accordingly. It was confirmed in appeal at the instance of the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, in exercise of his revisional powers suo motu ...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Bagga and ors. Vs. All India Reporter Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Bom302; (1969)71BOMLR409; 1969CriLJ1109; 1969MhLJ188
ORDER1. These five matters involve common points of law and hence would be disposed o f by a common judgment. The facts are mostly similar except for the slight difference in the allegation regarding certain acts committed by the accused which indicate the place of suing in respect of the offence concerned. These five matters arise out of five complaints filed by All India Reporter Limited, a Joint Stock Company, having kits branch office at Congress Nagar, Nagpur through Mr. D. V. Chitaley, Power of Attorney Agent, Nagpur. All the five criminal cases contain an allegation that the accused persons in the respective cases have infringed certain copyrights belonging to the complainant Company. Five different j works published by the accused persons are the subject-matter of the alleged infringement of copyrights. It is not necessary in this order of refer in detail to the names of the books written, printed and published by the accused persons. A brad fact that may be noted is that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Manordas Kalidas Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC37(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This order governs the disposal of all these six references. The references have now been made, on being directed by this Court to do so, by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the assessee-applicant. The question referred to us for decision is as follows : 'Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in law in refusing to look into the further evidence which the Deputy Commissioner had permitted the applicant to produce before him.' 2. In order to understand the implications of the question and the circumstances in which it has come to be referred, a few facts are necessary to be stated. The six references arise out of different periods as follows : (1) 1-11-1952 to 31-3-1953 (2) 1-4-1953 to 31-3-1954 (3) 1-4-1954 to 31-3-1955 (4) 1-4-1955 to 31-3-1956 Two references in respect of each of the two earlier periods are, one for general tax and another for special tax. That is why six references have been made in respect of these four periods. For the sake of conv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »