Mumbai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Nadiad Electric Supply C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR650(Bom)
Mody, J.1. The question referred in this reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 35,251 claimed by the assessee from the Nadiad Municipality is liable to inclusion in the income of the accounting year ended March 31, 1961, under section 10 and 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The reference arises out of assessment made upon the assessee-company for the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant accounting year being the one ended on 31st March, 1961. The assessee-company was carrying on the business of supplying electricity to consumers at Nadiad. One of such consumers was the Nadiad Municipality. There was an agreement between the assessee-company and the Nadiad municipality under which the assessee-company was to supply electricity to the Nadiad Municipality for 'street lighting, etc., purpose' at the rate fixed in the agreement at 19 paise per unit. The normal rate charged b...
Vishwanath Revansiddappa Lingshetti Vs. Shivshankar Basappa Ningshetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1970
Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR714
Nain, J.1. In these three appeals the parties coming in appeal are claiming certain amounts of interest in the settlement of partnership accounts. The interest is either claimed on debit entries made in the personal accounts of the partners or on capital contribution in excess of the capital contribution of the other partners. The claim in First Appeal No. 422 of 1962 amounts to Rs. 15,425, in First Appeal No. 486 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,278 and in First Appeal No. 526 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,572. Mr. Pendse, appearing for defendant No. 11, who is a respondent in these appeals, has objected to the notes as to Court-fees made on the memoranda of appeal by the respective advocates for the appellants and to the valuation made in respect of the Court-fees.2. In substance the notes put by the advocates in these three appeals state that the claims in appeal were not capable of valuation as they were regarding the interest which was not charged against defendant No. 11 and hence Cou...
Shivaji Narayan Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR215; 1971MhLJ864
Madon, J.1. This is an appeal by an accused who has been convicted under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that the appellant's father-in-law, B. R. Kodare, had a savings bank account with the Bajirao Road Post Office at Poona. The number of the account was 596028. About three years prior to 1969 the appellant left Rahu, the village where he was residing, and came to live in Mundhawa near Poona, very close to his father-in-law. He became acquainted with Krishna Rasane, the owner of a bangle and cycle shop in Mundhawa. In the morning of September 20, 1968 Rasane was coming to Poona on his bicycle. On the way he met the appellant who was also proceeding to Poona on a bicycle; so these two cycled towards Poona in the company of each other. On the way the appellant told Rasane that he wanted to withdraw some money from the Bajirao Road Post Office and that Rasane should accompany him, and thereafter they could both proceed t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR136(Bom)
K.K. DESAI, J.1. This is a consolidated reference arising out of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's three orders dated April 3, 1963. The question of law referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows : 'Whether the capital gain of Rs. 41,085 is to be taxed at the rate provided under section 17(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as contended by the assessee or at the maximum rate as contended by the department ?'. 2. The facts appear in the statement of the case. The facts which need to be noticed are as follows : One Mrs. Sharda R. Pandit executed three deeds of trust, dated June 27, 1943, thereunder settling certain shares of joint-stock companies. These three respective trusts were respectively for the benefit of the settlor's three sons, Vasantkumar, Rajendrakumar and Krishnakumar, and their wives and issues. All the three deeds of trust are in similar language and one specimen deed of trust is annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. 3. The as...
Hindusthan Klockner Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1970
Reported in: [1971]81ITR20(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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant to deduct the sum of Rs. 25,000 has been rightly disallowed on the ground that the same represents capital expenditure ?' 2. The applicant assessed is a public limited company. The expenditure of the sum of Rs. 25,000 mentioned in the question was made in the year account ending March 31, 1961, the assessement year being 1961-62. 3. It appears that prior to March 27, 1961, it was decided to create an employees' welfare fund of the name of Hindustan Klockner Switchgear Employees' Welfare Fund. In that connection, the employees had collected Rs. 581. For the purposes of creation of the fund, a draft deed of trust had been also got prepared. The draft is drawn up in a manner that compels and inference that it was prepared by lawyers. Rules and regulations for the administr...
Ganesh Narayan Kulkarni Vs. Ganesh Ramchandra Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Bom16; (1970)72BOMLR741; ILR1971Bom1556; 1971MhLJ87
Nain, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the judgment dated 18th June 1962 of the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, confirming the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division, Mangalwedha. The learned Second Extra Assistant Judge has, however, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff only on the ground that the suit was barred under Article 11-A of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. The facts leading to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:--The suit from which the present appeal arises was for possession of a house bearing Municipal No. 401 at Mangalwedha in Sholapur District and for mesne profits based on title as purchaser from the plaintiff's predecessor. This property, prior to the said purchase, belonged to one Watave. The defendant No. 1, according to Watave, was his tenant under a lease for 11 months. In 1953 Watave filed against the defendant No. 1 Civil Suit No. 4 of 1953 for eviction allegin...
Pushpabai Shankerlal Sura and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator, Sholap ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Bom271; (1969)71BOMLR472; ILR1971Bom195
Patel, J.1. On November 1, 1968 this appeal was before us and we had held that on the memorandum of appeal and the cross-objections both the sides were liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount either decreed or disallowed. A note was subsequently filed that to such a case the provisions of Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should be applicable and not Schedule I, Article 1 or 7 of the said Act as held by us. We have, therefore, reheard the matter. 2. The order in the present case is made in a winding up proceeding under circumstances which we have already stated in our order dated November 1, 1968. The two provisions which are relevant for the present purposes and which need be considered are Schedule I, Article 7 and Schedule II Article 13 of the said Act, Schedule I, Article 7 of the Act reads as follows:--'7. Any other plaint, application or petition including memorandum of appeal), to abstain substantive relief ...
Satpalsing Arora Vs. Santdas Prabhudas Malkani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: (1971)73BOMLR777
S.P. Kotval, C.J.1. The Special Civil Application No. 2323 of 1968 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 98 of 1969 are substantially between the same parties and arise out of the same subject-matter and may therefore be conveniently disposed of together.2. The Ishwarbhavan Cooperative Housing Society constructed a building known as Ishwarbhavan situated at Churchgate, 'A' Road, Bombay. Santdas Prabhudas Malkani respondent No. 1 became a member of the society and was allotted flat No. 2A in that building on a rental of Rs. 190 per month. The flat consists of two main rooms, bath rooms and a kitchen separated by a corridor and has a verandah in front. Malkani and his wife Mrs. G.S. Malkani were living in this flat. In October 1961 Malkani advertised in the local papers announcing that paying guest accommodation was available. Pursuant to that advertisement Setpal Singh Arora the petitioner in Special C.A. No. 2328 of 1968 entered into an agreement on November 1, 1961 and took a room i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›