Privy Council Court November 1939 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency, Sind and Baluchistan Vs ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROMER: The respondents, who carry on the business of cotton spinners and weavers in British India, are the owners of certain sterling bonds of the Government of India the interest on which is payable in England. In the year ending 31st March 1936, interest on such bonds was paid in sterling in England to certain agents of the respondents, the amount of such interest expressed in rupees being Rs. 18,333. This sum was expended by such agents in the purchase in England on behalf of the respondents of certain mill stores and machinery which were then sent to the respondents in British India and there used by them for the purposes of their business. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer in assessing the respondents to income-tax for the year of assessment, 1936-37, included in their income for the year 1935-36 the sum of Rs. 18,333 as being income "brought into British India" within the meaning of S. 4 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922. It will be convenient at this stage to set out S...

Commissioner of Income-tax Central and United Provinces, Lucknow Vs. M ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1940PC33

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: In this case the respondents have not been represented before their Lordships. The appeal is brought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, Lucknow, from a decision of the High Court at Nagpur given upon a reference made to that Court under S. 66 (2), Income-tax Act, 1922. The question of law is as to the admissibility of a deduction of Rs. 39,500 in computing the profits of the assessees' business. The year of assessment in respect of which the question arises is the year 1933-34 and as it is not contested that the sum in question was expended or lost in the " previous year," 1932-33, the deduction, if permissible, is claimed for the proper year. By the terms of S. 10 of the Act, the profits or gains of a business are to be computed after making certain allowances, one of which is provided for by the terms of cl. (ix) of sub-s. (2) as follows : (ix) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) incurred solely for the pu...

Sunil Kumar Kerr Vs. Sisir Kumar Kerr and Others

Court: Privy Council

LORD THANKERTON: The only question in this appeal is whether two mortgages executed by the executors of Thakur Das Kerr are binding on the estate of Thakur Das Kerr and on the properties which are the subject of the mortgages. The issue arises in a suit filed by the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 on 31st August 1929, for construction of the will of Thakur Das Kerr and for certain declarations, including a declaration that the said mortgages are invalid, inoperative and nullities and do not in any way bind the estate of the testator. Respondents 5 and 6, who alone appear in the appeal, are the representatives of the mortgagee under the first of the two mortgages. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in its appellate jurisdiction, dated 7th December 1934, which, as regards the declaration in question, affirmed the judgment of the said High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, made by Ameer Ali J., and d...

Raja Janaki Nath Roy and Another Vs. Raja Pramatha Nath Malta and Othe ...

Court: Privy Council

LORD ROMER: These are consolidated appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Port Williams in Bengal dated 1st December 1936, which varied the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Howrah dated 3rd January 1933. The question to be decided is whether; as held by the High Court, respondent 4, Kumar Pramatha Nath Roy, is entitled to be treated as a mortgagee of the properties A, B and C hereinafter mentioned, ranking in priority to the mortgage thereon of the appellants, or whether, as held by the Subordinate Judge, the appellants' mortgage ranks in priority to any claim of the said respondent. There was also at one time a question as to the relative priorities of the mortgages of the appellants and the said respondent on property D, hereinafter mentioned. It was indeed the question involved in the cross appeal of the said respondent being the second of the two consolidated appeals. This cross appeal was however abandoned at the hearin...

Macdonell Errol Mackay and Others Vs. Oswald Forbes

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1940PC16

LORD THANKERTON: This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in its civil appellate jurisdiction, dated 11th April 1938, which allowed in part the appeal of the present respondent from the judgment and order of the said High Court, in its original jurisdiction, made by Panckridge J. on 22nd July 1937. The respondent raises a preliminary point as to the jurisdiction of this Board to entertain this appeal in view of the provisions of S. 205, Government of India Act, 1935, which provides as follows : 205.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the Federal Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in British India, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder, and it shall be the duty of every High Court in British India to consider in every case whether or not any such question is involved and of its own motion...

Lala Ram Sarup Vs. Court of Wards Through Deputy Commissioner, Delhi a ...

Court: Privy Council

SIR GEORGE RANKIN: The appellant Lala Ram Sarup and respondent 4, Lala Alopi Parshad (herein called the plaintiffs), brought the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the District Judge at Delhi on 16th October 1928. The suit was brought upon an agreement of a champertous nature dated 2nd October 1920, and made between the plaintiffs and one Saleem Mahomed Shah. Saleem had since 26th January 1920 been suing in the Court of the District Judge at Delhi to establish his legitimacy as son to Shahzada Mirza Souriya Jah of the Moghul dynasty, who had died in 1913 possessed of considerable property. Besides Saleem, Souriya, had left him surviving two widows and two daughters. The Court of Wards had in 1913 taken over his whole estate as belonging to these female heirs, giving a compassionate allowance to Saleem as a temporary measure. It had been decided by the Chief Commissioner that the Court of Wards should not upon its own responsibility recognize Saleem as entitled to succ...

Satish Chandra Giri Vs. Dharanidhar Singha Boy and Others

Court: Privy Council

MR. JAYAKAR: These two appeals are against a decree dated 6th July and 24th August 1934, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, modifying a preliminary decree dated 6th November 1939, of the Court of the District Judge of Hoogly. The suit in which the decrees were passed was instituted under S. 92, Civil PC, 1908, by certain persons claiming to be interested in the administration of the shrine of Sri Taraknath near Calcutta, against one Satish Chandra Giri, the appellant in the main appeal (No. 29 of 1934) (hereinafter called the appellant), who was described as the shebait or mahant of the said shrine. The shrine of Taraknath, though sometimes referred to in the present proceedings as a math, is in reality a temple containing an idol called Sri Taraknathji. Its origin is lost in antiquity. The High Court of Calcutta has in its judgment traced its history back to 1747 A. D., and there is no doubt that it is a very ancient, public, religious and charitable endowment, of which the ...