Mumbai Court February 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.
Mastanshah Didarshah Fakir Vs. Umarshah Hattushah Fakir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR820; 1970MhLJ587
Bhole, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Amravati, in a criminal revision before him arising out of an order dated October 25, 1966 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amravati, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant Kasamshah son of Mastanshah Fakir has come here in revision.2. There was a dispute in respect of Nazul Plots Nos. 182/1 and 182/2, sheet No. 82-D, Amravati, between opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and the applicant and his deceased father. It appears that opponent No. 2 Hydershah Umarshah got the names of opponent No. 1 and of himself mutated on the ground that they were trustees of this property. It is said that there is a Durgah of Wali Kalandarshah on these two plots of land. On the other hand, the applicants claim to be in possession of this property. The applicants' complaint was that the opponents were trying to disturb their peaceful possession and there was likelihood of the breach o...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR637(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question of law that arises for decision is as follows : 'Whether the capital gains amounting to Rs. 4,62,974, were includible in the commercial profits for the purpose of considering 'the smallness of the profits made' in terms of section 23A of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The relevant facts are as follows : By an agreement dated November 11, 1946, the respondent assessee-company, which carried on business in a large way, sold the business of its Madras branch and admittedly the capital gains made by the assessee-company on such sale came to Rs. 4,62,974. The profits made by the Madras branch amounting to Rs 1,15,848 for the period April 1, 1946, to November 30, 1946, were, under the agreement for sale, agreed to be long to the purchaser firm. Admittedly, for the assessment year 1947-48 (the accounting year being ending March 31, 1947), the above two items of Rs. 4,62,974 and Rs. 1,15,848 were ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. K.A. Patch
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR413(Bom)
Mody, Actg.C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The relevant assessment year is 1960-61, the accounting year being the year ended 31st March, 1960. The assessee is an individual. The assessee was carrying on business as a share-broker. He also dealt in shares on his own account and those dealings he used to regularly by shares of stock-in-trade. In the beginning of the relevant accounting year he held amongst others, 1,750 ordinary shares of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., which he had purchased before the beginning of the accounting year. They from year to year is to show the shares held by him as his stock-in-trade. The assessee's practice the actual cost. In other words, he does not value the holding of his stock-in-trade at the end of each year at the market price, but continues to carry forward his holding from year to year at its original cost. 3. During the accounting year the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. made what is known as ...
Union of India Owning South Eastern Rly. Administration, Calcutta Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom52; (1972)74BOMLR577; ILR1971Bom1307; 1971MhLJ167
ORDER1. The original defendant Union of India owning South Eastern Railway Administration has filed this application being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned District Judge who has allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 860/- as compensation for short delivery in a consignment of 200 tons of mustard oil booked on 26-6-1962 from Bankura to Gondia. Theplaintiff claimed as an owner of the firm running under the name and style of 'Mulchand Ramprasad' and as an assignee of the railway receipt. The defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and his right to sue. It has also denied the shortage and further pleaded that the shortage if any was due to defective packing of the consignment and not due to any act of negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or its servants and, therefore, the defendant was not liable for the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Agarwal and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR894(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, two questions of law referred to us are as follows : '(1) Whether the distribution of shares amongst the partners of the assessee-firm amounts to a sale or transfer under section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the distribution in question is covered by the first proviso to section 12B(2) of the Act ?' 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. 3. The respondent is the assessee-firm which acted as the managing agents of Messrs. India United Mills Ltd. The assessment year in question is 1957-58, the financial year being S.Y. 2012 Maru (November, 1955, to October, 1956). Prior to May 23, 1955, the assessee-firm earned a very large amount of commission from the above mills company. On May 23, 1955, out of the Commissioner earned, the assessee-firm purchased 63,550 ordinary shares and 6,100 deferred shares of the mills com...
Ayodhyaprasad Nathulal Jaiswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR901; 1970MhLJ498
Bhole, J.1. The original accused has come in revision being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yeotmal, dismissing his appeal against his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur. He is convicted of an offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for being found on April 26, 1968 with 14 four-ounce bottles of liquor. The case of the prosecution was that P. S. I. Patil of Ghatanji Police Station in district Yeotmal, was waiting on information at the motor-stand for the arrival of the applicant. He was expected to bring liquor and therefore they were waiting for him. He arrived at the bus-stand at about 4.80 A.M. carrying a bag in his hand. He was, therefore, accosted and his bag searched. It was found to contain 14, four-ounce bottles, bearing the label 'Lavender 999'. The bottles had common seals. These bottles were seized from the possession of the applicant. The matter was investigated and the sample from these b...
Sher Mohomed Musahib Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR349; (1971)IILLJ31Bom
1. This is an application in revision against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in an appeal by which he confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed on the applicant under S. 52 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Shops Act). He is alleged to have contravened the provisions of S. 7(1) and S. 62 of the Shops Act. 2. The applicant is a weaver. He had installed a power-loom in his house in the year 1965 for manufacturing saris and lungis. He purchases raw materials from the market and works on his power-loom in his house. He finishes the goods and sells them in the market. The inspector visited the house of the applicant on January 28, 1967 and found that he had never sent any application in the prescribed form under S. 7(1) of the Shops Act to him for registration of his (applicant's) commercial establishment. He further found that the applicant did not maintain the visit book meant for writing the remarks by the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Champaklal Dalsukhbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR293(Bom)
Mody, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a common judgment in I. T. R. No. 61 of 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the first reference' and I.T.R. No. 77 of 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the second reference'. All the important materials and even the questions arising in these two reference are common, the only material difference being that the assessee in each case is different. It is, however, convenient to deal with both the references by a common judgment and the parties also have not objected to that procedure being adopted. Both the reference are under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The question of law referred in the first reference is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share from the firm of M/s. Vijaykumar Ramanlal and Co. was rightly assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family of which the assessee is the 'karta' for the assessment year 1957-58 ?' 3. The question of law referred in the second reference is : 'Whether, on th...
Rajpal Brothers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR463(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has arisen out of a single judgment given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on May 21, 1962, in the matter of two appeals before the Tribunal bearing Nos. 5118 and 5119 of 1961-62 in connection with assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the respective accounting years being calendar years 1956 and 1957. The question referred is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 39,725 and Rs. 17,921 were rightly treated as dividends paid to the two shareholders by the assessee-company within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Act ?' 2. The short relevant facts are as follows : The assessee is a private limited company. In the assessment year 1957-58 the assessee-company paid Rs. 24,500 and Rs. 15,225 aggregating to Rs. 39,725 as loans to two of its shareholders. In the assessment year 1958-59 the assessee-company paid the sums of Rs. 11,500 and Rs. 6,421...
B.R. Bamasi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR223(Bom)
Mody, Actg. C.J.1. This is a common judgment in respect of two income-tax references, being No. 47 of 1963 and No. 7 of 1964. The former relates to the assessment year 1946-47 and the latter relates to the assessment year 1947-48, the relevant corresponding accounting years being 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1946, and 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947. In both the references the assessee is the same, Common points arise and, as a matter of fact, even the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, when disposing of the second reference, disposed of the main point arising therein on the basis that the points has been dealt with and decided in the first reference. 2. In the first and second references the department sought to bring to tax Rs. 99,769 and Rs. 1,20,563, respectively, as being remittances from Iran, being a non-taxable territory, into India, being a taxable territory, under the provisions of section The question arising is : Whether the amount of those references or any part or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »