Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]104ITR493(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the revenue the following two question are referred for our determination under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' : '1. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in finding that the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 shown as credited to the deceased's account (sic) assessee's reserve fund account, on March 29, 1956, came out of the withdrawals made by it in the year 1948 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the department to prove, in order to bring to tax the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 2,00,000 standing in the assess's books during the accounting year, that during the year of account there were condition showing the possibility of the assessee earning large amounts outside the normal course of business ?' 2. The question referred to relate to the assessment year 1956-57 for which the relevant previous year ends on March 31, 1956. The assessee is a priva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]103ITR563(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This is a consolidated reference both at the instance of the assessee as well as the revenue, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee is a private limited company holding shares in other companies. Its total income for the assessment year 1960-61 was determined at Rs. 55,975. This total income included an item of Rs. 17,027 representing dividends on the new ordinary shares of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. which were exempt from payment of super-tax under section 56A of the Act. Even a certificate was issued by the company that the dividends on those new shares were exempt from payment of super-tax in the hands of the share-holders. The tax payable by the assessee on the total income came to Rs. 25,433. In the relevant previous year the assessee-company distributed by way of dividends a sum of Rs. 21,000. 2. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that as the dividend declared was less than the minimu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom170; (1975)77BOMLR62
1. This second appeal filed by the original defendant No.1 Ramchandra Ganapati Salunke raises an important question of Hindu Law. Respondent No.2 Mukatabai who was original defendant No.2 died pending the second appeal and her adopted son Rajaram who is respondent No.1 brought on record as her heir. Respondent No.3 Ganpati is original defendant No.3.2. Defendant No.2 Muktabai adopted the plaintiff Rajaram on August 3, 1953. Her husband Bapu died in the year closely related to each other. Rajaram's natural father Tukaram is the full brother of defendant No.1 Ramchandra, Tukaram and Ramchandra are the sons of Ganapati defendant No.2 and his wife Chandrabai. This Chandrabai is the daughter of Sakharam who is the brother of Muktabai's husband Bapu. Ganpati defendant No.3, is the Sakharam. The relationship between the parties would be clear from the genealogy which is set out below:NARUMukta = Bapu Sakhaream = Bahubai Manjabai(D.2) (d.1947)Rajaram Chandrabai Ganapati (D.3) = Chandrabai)Plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1976CriLJ381
ORDERShimpi, J.1. The applicant complainant has filed this revision application challenging the order confirming the dismissal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1973 arising out of an order dated 14-8-1973 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Criminal Case No. 2440/73 dismissing the complaint of the complainant.2. The facts in brief are as under-- The complainant is the Controller of Akola area of Brooke Bond India Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta. The Company has got branches all over India. The Company is selling one brand which is known as 'Special Hotel Blend.' The said tea is wrapped in a packet with a floral design with a rose flower with green leaves and a stem underneath. The details about this wrapper is to be found in paragraph No. 3 of the complaint. The complainant further recited in the complaint that the necessary trade mark of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1044; 1974MhLJ839
ORDERShimpi, J.1. The accused-applicant has filed this revision application aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 427. Indian Penal Code, against him sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to Pav a fine of Rs. 100/-or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month bv the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon in summary Case No. 1952/1971 and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1972 filed bv the accused-appellant. The facts in brief are as under:The complainant, who is opponent No. 2, had filed a private Criminal complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon, against the accused under Sections 323, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant's deceased father had Purchased houses Nos. 303 and 304 situate in ward No. 25 on September 1'. 1967 from one Yeshodabai Vyankat of Khamg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]102ITR219(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1992, in which at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay, the following question has been referred to us by the tribunal for our opinion : 'Whether the sum of Rs. 60,000, which is the purchase cost of the film 'Pomposh' paid by the assessee-company, could be allowed as an admissible revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1956-57 ?' 2. The facts leading to this question may briefly be stated : The question relates to the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year of which was the financial year ending 31st of March, 1956. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of processing and printing, films. In August, 1955, it purchased the processing and printing laboratory known as 'Film Center' from M/s. Patel India Ltd. Three months later, by an agreement dated 1st of Novermber, 1955, the assessee-company purchased the film 'Pomposh' from M/s. Patel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]105ITR359(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The question relates to the registration of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1959-60 for which the corresponding previous year is Samvat year 2014, i.e., from October 24, 1957, to November 11, 1958. Under a deed of partnership dated April 25, 1955, the assessee firm was constituted. It consisted of 9 persons and each of the 9 persons was equally entitled to his share of profits and was liable to bear equally the losses of the firm. Clause 12 of the partnership deed provided that the firm shall not be dissolved upon the death of any partner and the particular provisions thereof we will refer to a little later. On January 26, 1958, Laxminarayan, one of the 9 partners, died. Thereafter, on December 1, 1958, a fresh partnership deed was executed according to which the eight of the surviving partners continued as partners and Godavaribai, widow of deceased Laxminarayan, was taken as a partner. 2. On June 29, 1959 an application for renewal of registration of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom120; (1974)76BOMLR729; 1975MhLJ29
Desai, J. 1. The petitioner in this special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was the 1st opponent in Arbitration Case No. ABN/V.83 of 1970. which was a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Bombay. In the said dispute raised by the 1st opponent in Arbitration Case No. ABN/V.83 of 1970, which was a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 before the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Bombay in the said dispute raised by the 1st respondent to this special civil application (hereinafter referred to as the licensor), the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the licensee) had contended that the dispute between him and the licensor did not touch the business of the Jhulelal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., who is the 2nd respondent to this special civil application, that he was a tenant of the licensor, that he was a tenant of the licensor, and that the court of Sma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1131
ORDERShimpi, J.1. The applicant husband hag filed this revision application praying that the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 8th Court, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 6-A of 1973 confirmed in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 1973, be quashed and the application made by the non-applicant wife under Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code be remanded to the Court of the Magistrate for recording evidence and passing adequate orders as the Magistrate would deem fit after hearing the parties,The facts in brief are as under:That the applicant husband was married with the non-applicant sometime in 1964. During the subsistence of the marriage, son was born sometime in 1968. A contention was raised before me by the learned Advocate for the applicant that the son was born in 1967. He has produced one certificate of a school which shows that the mother had admitted the boy to the school and the birth date shown in that certificate is 15-4-1968. It is further seen that the positio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR395
Shah, J.1. These four Special Civil Applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raise interesting- but important questions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The three petitions, Special Civil Applications 1843/1970 to 1845/1970 raise common questions of law and fact, So fur as Special Civil Application 631/1970 is concerned, one of the questions of law raised therein is common to the question arising in the other three matters. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose of all the four petitions by a common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised, it would be necessary to state the relevant facts out of which these four petitions have arisen.3. I will first deal with the facts in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1843 to 1845 of 1970. All these three petitions have been filed by different tenants in possession of different lands belonging to Satish Narayan Naik, who is the respo...
Tag this Judgment!