Mumbai Court March 1975 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Kamlabai Juthalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR755(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This reference relates to the question whether there is a diversion of income by the assessee before it has reached her hands or whether this is a case where there is application of income by the assessee after it was received by her. The reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62 and the short facts are as under : By a deed of settlement dated July 1, 1947, Lala Motilal Chimanram Jhunjhunwala, settled upon trust 225 shares of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. of the face value of Rs. 1,000 each for the objects therein stated. By clause 2 of the deed of settlement the settlor directed the trustees to pay the net income from the trust to his daughter-in-law, Kamlabai Juthalal, the assessee for the term of her life, and after her, to hold the corpus of the trust fund upon trust and to divide the same in equal shares amongst all the sons of Juthalal Motilal (grand-sons of the settlor). After some years, on May 5, 1956, by a tripartite deed of assignment and gi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Sitaram N. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR13(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, in which two questions have been referred to us for our determination, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, and the other at the instance of the assessee and the two questions respectively are these : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and on the findings above referred to, the lands ultimately sold to or acquired for, (a) Ciba of India, (b) New Standard Engineering Co., and (c) Nanubhai Industries, were agricultural lands and, therefore, exempt under section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act ((a), (b) and (c) for the year 1960-61 and (a) for the year 1961-62) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the finding that the lands admeasuring 40,315 sq. yds. were not agricultural lands and, therefore, not entitled to exemption from the wealth-tax is justified in law ?' 2. The facts giving rise to these two questions m...
Tag this Judgment!Totaram Maharu Vs. Ramabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom315; (1977)79BOMLR87; 1977MhLJ97
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed from the order of Mr. P. T. Patil, Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, dated 30th September, 1955, dismissing the plaintiff's suit which was for a declaration of ownership and possession of certain property under the Will of his father Chavdas Dharma kolhe (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The Will in question was executed by the deceased on the 4th of August, 1963, and has been tendered as Ex. No. 45 in these proceedings. The deceased died on the 12th of February, 1964, and was, at the time of his death, of the approximate age of 82 or 83 years. The plaintiff's case is that his deceased father originally bore the name of Maharu Dhondu ohe, that when the plaintiff was still a child, his father was given in adoption to one Dharma Kolhe, and that thereafter the plaintiff's deceased father changed his name to Chavdas Dharma Kolhe, and the plaintiff was also brought up in the adoptive family. According to the plaintiff, after ado...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-i Vs. Sharangadhar Shamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR320(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-I, Bombay, the following question has been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the value of the Government securities of Rs. 1 lakh, bona fide gifted by Govind Shamji to his wife and sons more than two years before his death, could be included in the dutiable estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the question may be stated : One Govind Shamji, who carried on money-lending business at Bombay, purchased on July 25, 1951, and January 14, 1953, Government securities of the face value of Rs. 50,000 in the joint names of himself and his wife. On October 24, 1951, and June 26, 1952, he also purchased Government securities of the face value of Rs. 50,000 in the names of his two minor sons by himself as their guardian. On March 22, 1954, he made a declarati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Kishanlal Bubna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR56(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference involves a nice question as regards the interpretation of the of the provisions of the section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The question refers to the assessment year 1962-63, for which the relevant valuation date is March 31, 1962. By the two trusts created by the assessee respectively on February 18, 1957, and November 11, 1957, two respective amounts of Rs. 25,101 and Rs. 21,201 were respectively settled upon trusts and transferred to the trustees for the benefit of his two minor daughters. After the trustees were created the trustees out of the trust funds purchased shares. On the valuation date the trusts funds were held in shares of which the valuation was Rs. 75,610. In determining the wealth tax payable by the assessee who is the settlor, the Wealth-tax Officer took the view that it is the market value of the shares on the valuation date that was to be included in the net wealth of the assessee and he accordingly included the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayakrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thorough Its Secretary, Revenu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom10; 1975MhLJ566
Shimpi, J. 1. Petitioner by this special Civil application prays that the order dated 27-1-1969 passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in a revision application filed by the petitioner dismissing his petition whereby he confirmed the order of the Collector under which the petitioner was fined Rs. 200/- and he was not granted permission to sell his agricultural lands, be quashed. The fact in brief, are as under ;--Petitioner held agricultural lands situate at village Mohadara. Tahsil Umrer. The old Survey Nos. being 61/1 admeasuring 65 acres and 65 decimals and 45/2, 45/4 and 46 admeasuring 15.22 assessed at Rs. 21. 37 . In the year 1966 under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947, consolidation of agricultural holdings took place at the said village and old Survey No. 61/1 was given a new number being Unit No. 97 while the other three lands Nos. 45/2, 45/4 and 46 were given a new number as Unit No. 50.2. After the ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayansa Dharamchandsa Vs. Laxman Motiram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom61; 1975MhLJ503
ORDER1. The petitioner Narayansa is the owner of a small field Survey No. 112 area 7 acres area 7-Acres 34 Gunthas of Mouza Tondgaon. By a deed of mortgage (hereinafter called the deed) of September 24,1957, he purported to take a debt of Rs. 25000/- for himself and his sons Shankarrao and Digrai who was a minor, and under the terms set out in that document handed over the possession of the said field to the mortgagee Rambhau s/o bauble Cord now represented by respondent No. 2 Pandering his son. 2. With regard to this property, certain facts are not in disputes. The mortgagee who took possession purported to induct respondent No. 1 Laxman on this land as a tenant since after the year 1958-1959 . The deed of mortgage is a written deed and was duly executed on September 24, 1957. Name of Laxman having appeared in the crop-statements summate proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. 1958 (hereinafter also called the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharanappa Malappa Sakhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR132
Joshi, J.1. His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case, proceeded. At the outset, we are constrained to make one observation regarding the mode of recording evidence of such, a child witness. No doubt, following the head-note given by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 1952CriLJ547 , nowadays we find the Judges take the precaution of putting preliminary questions to ascertain whether the witness is in a position to distinguish between truth and falsehood. But they conveniently ignore the other caution repeatedly given that while recording the evidence of such a child witness it should invariably be in the form of questions and answers. This mode of recording the evidence is not only a airplay but gives an idea to the Court which takes down the deposition as well as to the appellate Court what exactly the question put was and what answer was given by the witness. From the frame of questions and the answers given one can make out how...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric Supply ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR384(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. By this reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following three questions are referred, for our determination :- '1. Whether, on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Electric (Supply) Act and the Indian Electric Act, the capital reserve of Rs. 43,08,785, the contingent reserve of Rs. 7,53,433 and the development reserve of Rs. 7,22,477 are liable to be included in determining the net wealth of the assessee 2. Whether in determining the net wealth of the respondent the sum of Rs. 8,58,850, being the provision made for gratuities to employees should be allowed as a deduction 3. Whether the sum of Rs. 5,18,160 being provision made for taxation in respect of the year ended on March 31, 1959 (assessment year 1959-60), should be allowed as a deduction in determining the respondent's net wealth ?' 2. So far as the last two question are concerned, Mr. Joshi on behalf of the revenue and Mr. Dastu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Oxford University Pres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR166(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Two questions, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, and the other at the instance of the assessee, have been referred to us by the Tribunal for determination under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the two question respectively are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 59,000 for the uniting work and architect's fees of Rs. 3,680 in connection therewith were rightly held as expenditure incurred for repairs and, therefore, allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the whole or any part of the gratuity paid to the heirs of Shri B. D'brass was an allowable expenditure in the hands of the company ?' 2. As far as the first question is concerned, the relevant facts are these : The assessee is a company carrying on business of publishers and book sellers, importing and selling books published by the Oxford Univ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »