Mumbai Court March 1970 Judgments
Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR633(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and owns a colliery at Rampur in Sambalpur District in the State of Orissa. 3. The short point for decision is whether the expenses incurred by the assessee in assisting the prosecution of certain persons who were accused of having rioted and caused the death of its manager while he was engaged in the business of the assessee was deductible in the assessment of the assessee under section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : The question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 35,845 incurred in aiding the prosecution in the riot case could be said to be expenditure allowable under section 10(2) (xv) ?' 4. The assessment year under reference is 1961-62, the relevant accounting year being the year ended 30th June, 1960. 5. Under an award of the Industrial T...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala M. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR648(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. The applicant-assessee earned property income, business income and income from other sources, i.e., dividend income, resulting from ownership of shares of limited companies. In the year of account ending March 31, 1958, the assessment year being 1958-59, the assessee applied to the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. to allot to the assessee 2,700 ordinary shares of the fact value of Rs. 75. It appears that along with the application the assessee had to pay Rs. 30, Rs. 25 thereof being premium. The assessee paid the application money of Rs. 30, and in pursuance thereof, some time prior to November 25, 1956, acquired 2,700 ordinary shares of the above company. 2. It appears that the assessee was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 70 by installments of two calls of Rs. 35 each in respect of the above shares. By notice dated November 25, 1956, the assessee was called upon to pay the first call of Rs. 35 per share and he was informed that in default of payment of the sum of Rs. 35 of the...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Narhar Sakharam Dande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR908
Bhole, J.1. Each of these references, arises out of an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in a revision against the order of admonition passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim, on the accused in each case, who was prosecuted for offences punishable under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.2. In each of the cases, the Inspector of the Shops and Establishments filed a complaint against the accused on the allegation that he had violated certain provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. In Criminal Reference No. 3 of 1970, the Inspector visited the Sarafa Shop of the accused on September 27, 1968 when he found that he had not displayed the notice of weekly closure day in a conspicuous place in his shop as required under Section 18 (I) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Shops Act'). He also found that he had not maintained the lime washing register even after a previous...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Deviprasad Khandelwal a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR460(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J. 1. In this reference made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question arising for decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,35,000 (rupees one lakh and thirty-five thousand) credited to the account of Ramsaran Pyarelal did not constitute the income of the assessee-company ?' 2. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : The assessee-company had its office and carried on business at Lokhand Jatha, Carnac Road, Bombay. It was incorporated on February 22, 1943, with a paid-up capital of Rs. 2,00,000 divided into 2,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. This reference relates to the accounting year ending March 31, 1946, the assessment year being 1946-47. In August, 1945, the whole of the share capital of the company belonged to six shareholders, but as on March 31, 1946, two of the shareholders with a small holding had transferred the...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator of the Sakeeria Cotton Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR528(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. This reference relates to three assessment years 1952-53, 1955-56 and 1956-57, the relevant accounting years being the calendar years 1951, 1954 and 1955. The assessee was carrying on business as a manufacturer of textile goods. There was a dispute about payment of gratuity between the assessee and its employees and it was referred for industrial adjudication. In the adjudication an award dated 6th October, 1948, was made and it was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on October 28, 1948. The assessee became liable to pay gratuity to its employees under that award on the following basis mentioned in the award, viz. :- 'Every employee should be entitled to gratuity at the rate of one months' salary current at the time of retirement, discharge or resignation from service... I therefore, direct and gratuity should be paid to all employees covered by this reference on the scale laid down below ...
Tag this Judgment!Navnitlal C. Jhaveri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City - I, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR582(Bom)
Mody, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. This reference concerns the assessment year 1956-57, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended on 31st March, 1956. 3. The assessee is an individual. During the accounting year the assessee was a registered holder holding 11 shares of the Malegaon Electricity Company P. Ltd., hereinafter referred in as 'the Malegaon Electricity Company', out of a total of 845 shares issued by the company. The assessee held those 11 shares as a nominee of the Consolidated Electric Agencies Ltd. The latter company was the managing agent of the Malegaon Electricity Company. During the accounting year the Malegaon Electricity Company advanced to the assessee a loan of Rs. 4,16,000. The balance-sheet of the Malegaon Electricity Company for the year ended 31st March, 1956, shows that it had in its general reserve fund a sum of Rs. 80,000 and in its profit and loss appropriation account a profit of Rs. 2,91...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR136(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J. 1. The question of law referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows :- 'Whether, in considering 'the smallness of the profit made' in terms of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as in force, the amount of Rs. 4,16,256 repayable to the assessee out of the E. P. T. despite was properly excluded ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a limited liability company. The question relates to the accounting year 1950 ending with March 31, 1950, and the assessment year 1950-51. In connection with the accounts of the above accounting year, the annual general meeting of the assessee-company was held on December 23, 1950. According to the approved balance-sheet of the company, the commercial profits came to Rs. 5,18,364. The assessable income was determined at Rs. 8,66,503. The tax liability in respect of the above assessable income was Rs. 3,52,070. In the result, upon deduction of the above tax liability from the above assessabl...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrabai Pandurang Bidwekar Vs. Nanji Jaywant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom115; (1970)72BOMLR503; 1970MhLJ748
1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment of Mr. G.A. Desai, Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, dismissing her suit. The plaintiff's case is that on 23rd April 1958 she purchased land admeasuring 1330 Sq. yards from one Bhogilal, who had, in his turn, purchased it sometime in the year 1947 from one Shevantilal Vora. There is no dispute in the present suit in regard to the plaintiff's title to the suit land and the plaintiff's document of title which is the deed of conveyance dated 23-4-58 has been tendered and marked Ex. B. The defendant, however, claims to be a tenant in occupation of a part admeasuring about 85 sq. yards of the said land on which he has a hut. The plaintiff filed the present suit in order to eject the defendant as a trespasser from the said portion of the land, and the learned Judge dismissed that suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in unlawful occupation of the suit land. It is from that order of di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Public Utilities Invest ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: [1983]143ITR236(Bom)
K.K. Desai, J.1. In this consolidated reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following three questions of law arise for decision : '(1) Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the assessee is a non-resident for assessment year 1952-53, and outside the mischief of section 4A(c)(ii) is legal (2) Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the Brazilian interest receivable for 1953 was not assessable in 1954-55 as it could not be demanded is legal (3) Whether the interest on the 3% Sterling Promissory Note or the interest on the 3% Indian Rupee Promissory Note on which no tax was deducted at source under section 18 were at all chargeable to Indian income-tax and whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction in respect thereof and, if so, from what income, Indian, foreign or world ?' 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. The questions relate to the assessment years 1952-53 and 1954-55, the accounting years being calendar years 1951 and 1953. 3. The qu...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Kelkar Vs. Ambadas Keshav Bajaj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom124; (1971)73BOMLR260; [1971(22)FLR268]; ILR1971Bom910; 1971LabIC429; 1971MhLJ69
Kotval, C.J.1. These two special civil applications raise common questions of law of some importance and may be conveniently disposed of together. We are concerned in both these applications with orders passed by the Payment of Wages authority regarding the remuneration payable under the recently enacted Payment of Bonus Act (21 of 1965) which came into force on the 25th of September 1965. The principal points raised are regarding jurisdiction viz. whether the remuneration payable under the Act can be claimed before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and whether the petitioner Companies are exempt under the Bonus Act. For the purpose of the points raised the facts are also somewhat similar. The orders impugned however have been passed by two different authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The main argument was advanced in Special Civil Application No. 2239 of 1968 and we would first set forth briefly the facts of that Special Civil Application. The petitioner before...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »