Mumbai Court January 1970 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.
Mills Store Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR225(Bom)
Mody, Actg.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) or the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Messrs. Mills Store Company, a partnership firm constituted of six partners, was carrying on business at Karachi with branches, amongst other places, at Bombay. As at the end of March, 1948, that partnership was dissolved and its accounts were made up. As from 1st April, 1948, three of the six partners took over the karachi business and continued it in the same name. This new Karachi firm will be referred to as 'the Karachi firm'. As from 1st April, 1948, the three remaining partners took over the Bombay business and continued it in the same old name in partnership with to new partners. This firm will be referred to as 'the assessee-firm'. 3. After these two new firms were formed there were numerous transaction between them. The Income-tax Tribunal has found that in the accounting year 1948-49 ending on 31st March, 1949, the assessment year being 1949-50, an amount of Rs. 3,94,823 was debit...
Pratap Baburao Bhosale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR411; 1970MhLJ729
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused, who was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum, Bombay on March 31, 1969, of the offence under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. It is material for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal to quote Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, which is in the following terms:24. Whoever has in his possession or conveys in any manner, or offers for sale or pawn, anything which there is reason to believe is stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, shall, if he foils to account for such possession or to act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for n term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both.The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal are that on September 4, 1967 a complaint had been filed by one Manekchand that h...
Hiralal Dayaram Patil Vs. Bhikari Sampat Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR481
Chitale, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 8 against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, against them for Rs. 10,500 with future interest and costs.2. The facts admitted before us are as follows :One Sampat Ganpat Shinde was the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 8 and 5 to 11, and husband of plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 12. One Daulat Shimpi obtained two decrees against Sampat, one of them was a mortgage decree for Rs. 10,000 (exh. 45) and the other one was a money decree for Rs. 7,000 (exh. 46). Sampat agreed not to dispose of his properties until the two decrees were satisfied. On July 12, 1949 Sampat sold S. Nos. 74 and 84/1 at Kekatnimbhore to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 minors by their guardian their natural father-defendant No. 3. The sale-deed is at exh. 39. The consideration for the sale-deed was Rs. 24,912, which was made up by the amounts due under the said two decrees and some other consideration. After purchase defendants Nos. 1 and 2 paid the amo...
Shantabai Vs. Kamlakant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom283; (1971)73BOMLR341; ILR1971Bom493
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in regard to the valuation of the court-fee and for jurisdiction purpose. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession of agricultural land. He has paid the Court-fee stamp of a value equal to twenty times the land revenue. He has valued for the purpose of jurisdiction Rs. 9000/- which, according to him, was the market value of the land. An objection was raised by the defendant stating that the valuation so far as jurisdiction was concerned was not proper. According to the defendant, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be similar to that of the valuation for the purposes of the Court-fee Stamp. The learned Civil Judge, who has entertained this objection, came to be of the view that the proper valuation would be similar to the valuation the plaintiff made for the purposes of the Court-fee stamp. This order of the trial Court therefore is now challenged here.2. The poi...
Daruvala Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR213(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question referred to us for decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,000 had been rightly taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 10(5A) of the Act ?' 2. Having regard to the language of the above section, the direct questions which arise for consideration are : (1) whether the assessee-firm was holding an agency...... relating to the business of any other person and (2) whether the compensation of Rs. 50,000 in respect whereof the assessee-firm has been taxed under the above section was received by it in connection with the termination of an agency or the modification of the terms and conditions of an agency 3. The facts appear in the statement of the case. 4. The assessee is a private limited company. By an agreement dated April 29, 1955, made between Ciba Pharma Ltd. (which company was the importer of pharmaceutical pr...
R.M. Raja (Deceased) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR308(Bom)
Mody, Actg.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It concerns the assessment years 1946-47 and 1948-49, the corresponding accounting years being Samvat year 2001 (18th October, 1944, to 4th November, 1945), and Samvat year 2003 (25th October, 1946 to 12th November, 1947) In these two assessment years the Sums of Rs. 1,73,000 and Rs, 4,80,000 have been brought to tax under the provisions of section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, under the order of the Tribunal out of which this reference arises. These two amounts have been brought to tax on the basis of their having been received in the taxable territories, being British Indian, as it then was, from the accumulated profits from the then native State of Junagadh by the Tribunal by its judgment which is common to both the said assessment years. 2. Two questions have been referred, but question No. 2 has not been pressed and, as a matter of fact, was not argued at all. Only question No. 1, th...
Balkrishan R. Dayma Vs. Bank of Jaipur Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas557(Bom)
Nathwani, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decreed of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, dismissing the plaintiff's suit except for Rs. 1,000 awarded as damages and interest thereon. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for return of 40 bales of yearn pledged by him with the first defendant bank, or for Rs. 14,210 as the value thereof, or in the alternative for the said sum of Rs. 14,210 as damages for failure to return the said 14 bales, and interest and costs. The plaintiff had also, in addition to the aforesaid reliefs, claimed Rs. 5,000 as damages for dishonour of three cheques drawn by him on his current account maintained in the first defendant bank and interest thereon, 2. The plaintiff's case may be briefly stated as under : The plaintiff was at all material times carrying on business as merchant in cotton yarn in Bombay in the firm name and style of M/s Roopnarayan Sharma; that he used to store his cotton-yarn bales on Godown No. 8 Gu...
State Vs. Sindhi Dalwai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR396
Palekar, J.1. When the above confirmation case was called on for hearing before us, Mr. Mengde, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the accused, made an application to the Court requesting that the accused, Raman, be medically examined by a competent Board of Psychiatrists in order to determine the present state of his mind.2. It will be necessary to state a few facts to understand the background of this application. In the months of July and August 1968, there was a spate of murders in the Western Suburbs of Greater Bombay. Offences were duly registered in the respective Police Stations but the murderer was never found. However, having regard to certain common peculiarities in these murders, superior police authorities suspected, on the basis of the records, the present accused as the murderer. The police were put on his trail, but since the accused had no fixed place of residence and his movements and operations were restricted to nights, the police were unable to catch him. On A...
Keshao Raghunath Deosant and ors. Vs. Waman Keshao Deosani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom26; (1971)73BOMLR820; 1970MhLJ801
1. This is an appeal against the appellate judgment dated 27th March 1962 of the learned District Judge, Bhandara. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit, from which this appeal arises, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the joint Hindu family properties described in Schedules A to E attached to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is the second wife of the defendant No. 1 and is the step-mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 from his first wife. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendant No. 1 from the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 5 is the son of defendant No. 1 from his first wife and is the full brother of the plaintiff. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an agreement inter alia to the effect that the properties shown in Schedules A, B and C be divided into 6 shares. Accordingly, on 30th January 196...
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: [1970]76ITR478(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, similar questions of law in respect of five assessment years, viz., 1951-52, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57, arise for decision. In connection with the question which relates to the claim for deduction of the entire managing agency commission and other overhead expenses in respect whereof one-third was disallowed as being attributable to agricultural income, the parties are now agreed that the answer will have to be in favour of the assessee-company in accordance with the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1968]68ITR512(Bom) 2. The two other questions relate to (1) ascertainment of the true value of sugarcane grown by the assessee-company on its plantations and (2) ascertainment of the true value of closing stock of sugar. This second question arises only in the last three years of assessment mentioned above. 3. The relevant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »