Privy Council Court October 1948 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Mofussil Vs. the Western India ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Oaksey: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 26th March 1915, which was delivered on a reference made under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922. [2] The question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent company, being assessed to tax in respect of the profits and gains of its life insurance business under R. 2 (b) of the schedule to the Act, is entitled under proviso 3 to S. 4 (1) of the Act to a deduction of Rs. 4500 in respect of certain income derived by it from the investment of part of its business funds outside British India, which income, however, was not brought into or received in British India. [3] The facts of the case are as follows : [4] The respondent company is resident in British India and carries on the business of life insurance in British India with its head office at Satara in the Province of Bombay. It has no branches outside British India. All its profits are derived from its life insurance business. ...

Phanindra Chandra Neogy Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC117

Lord Simonds: This appeal is brought by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dismissing the appeal of the appellant, Phanindra. Chandra Neogy, from the conviction and sentence passed on him by the Chief Magistrate, Calcutta, on 10th April 1946. [2] The conviction was for an offence under S. 161, Penal Code and the sentence was one of twelve months rigorous imprisonment. It is convenient to set out the charge which was in these terms : "That you Phanindra Chandra Neogy, on or about 10th day of September 1945, in the Town of Calcutta being a public servant to wit, a Railway servant and an inspector in the office of the Regional Controller of Priorities accepted from one Sohanlal a gratification other than your legal remuneration to wit, the sum of Rs. 500 only as a motive or reward for showing favour to the said Sohanlal in the exercise of your official functions relating to an application by the said Sohanlal for being allowed two wagon...

international Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd. Vs. Provincial Tax Commissi ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC72

Lord Morton of Henryton: This is an appeal, by special leave of His Majesty in Council, from so much of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada dated 22nd April 1941, as is adverse to the appellant. The appeal relates to three assessments of income tax made against the appellant on 23rd August 1938, by the Commissioner of Income tax of the Province of Saskatchewan, as follows: (a) for the taxation year, 1934 ... 4,382.07 (b) for the taxation year, 1935 ... 11,541.07 (c) for the period of ten months ending 31st October 1936 ... 10,136.60 Total ... $26,059.74 [2] The appellant is a corporation incorporated under the Companies Act of the Province of Ontario, having its head office at the City of Hamilton, Ontario. The appellant's business is the manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and parts thereof and business incidental thereto. The manufacturing operations of the appellant are carried on entirely outside the Province of Saskatchewan and its selling operations are car...

Mohammad Jan and Another Vs. Rafi-ud-dIn and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC70

Sir John Beaumont: These are consolidated appeals from two judgments and decrees of the High Court of Judicature, Lahore, dated respectively 4th November 1943, which set aside two judgments and decrees of the Court of the District Judge, Attock District, at Campbellpur, dated 28th April 1941, affirming two judgments and decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class at Campbellpur dated 12th December 1940. [2] The case raises the question whether the Qureshis, a Mohammadan tribe in the Punjab, of the village Paur Miana, are precluded by custom from alienating ancestral property except for necessity or with requisite consents. [3] The property was owned by two brothers, Abdulla and Ghias-ud-din, and it is conceded that in their hands the property in suit was ancestral property [4] On 26th August 1924, Abdulla and Ghias-ud-din sold part of the lands in suit to the appellants, Mohammad Jan and Shera, for Rs. 1,800 by a registered sale deed, and on 29th May 1938, they sold the r...

Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City Vs. Great Eastern Life Assura ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 6th October 1944, upon a reference made to that Court under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922, raising two questions relating to the computation of the profits and gains of the Bombay branch of the respondent company (hereinafter called "the assessees"). [2] The assessees are a company incorporated in the Straits Settlement having their head office at Singapore and carrying on life insurance business in British India through their branch office at Bombay. It is therefore a company not resident in British India. The year of assessment is the year 1939-1940, and the previous year, that is the year of charge, is the calendar year 1938. The amendments to the Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, which came into force on 1st April 1939, apply to the year of assessment. The Act of 1922 as so amended by the Act of 1933 will hereinafter be referred to as "...

The Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan Vs. John East Iron Works Lt ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC129

Lord Simonds: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, a question of constitutional importance is raised whether certain provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1944, of the Province of Saskatchewan, which will be referred to as "the Act", are within the legislative powers of that Province under the British North America Act, 1867, [2] The facts of the case upon which the question arises are not in dispute and can be shortly stated. [3] On 15th May 1947, the respondent, John East Iron Works, Limited which carries on business in Saskatchewan, dismissed from its employment six of its employees. Thereupon the United Steel Workers of America, a trade union, complaining that the respondent in dismissing these employees bad been guilty of an unfair labour practice within the meaning of S. 8 (1) (e) of the Act applied to the appellant, the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan, for orders requiring the respondent to reinstate them and to pay them ...

imam DIn Vs. Mt. Said Bibi (Since Deceased) and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC87

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature, Lahore, dated 30th January 1936; which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, Lyallpur, dated 19th June 1935, which modified a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 20th June 1934. [2] In the suit, commenced in January 1933 out of which this appeal arises the present appellant, who was the plaintiff and will generally be so referred to, prayed for a declaratory decree to the effect that the alienation by gift in respect of land measuring 1744 kanals and 12 marlas entered in the khewat therein mentioned situated in the area of Khanpur Nahipur, effected by Mt Bibi the original defendant 1 in favour of her three daughters defendants 2, 3 and 4, and Ghulam Mohammad defendant 5 and the alienation of his fourth share by defendant 5 in favour of Mohammad Hussain defendant 6 were ineffective null and void as against the reversionar...

N.K.M.S.P. Visalakshi Achi Vs. R.M.M.L. Muthiah Chettiar and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC66

Lord Normand: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Madras reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and dismissing the appellant's suit. The question for determination is whether the appellant is entitled to recover from the respondents a sum (with accrued interest) which her father-in-law deposited on the occasion of her marriage in her name with the firm known as M. A. M. S., of which he and the respondents or their predecessors were partners. [2] The material facts, together with agreed or acceptable translations of the crucial documents, are set out with so much clarity and precision in the judgment of the High Court that their Lordships are content to refer to it without repeating what has there been said. [3] In their Lordships' view the decision turns upon the meaning and effect of the letter written on 24th January 1946 (1916?) by the appellant's father-in-law, Meyyappa, to the Ranoon agent of the M. A. M. S. firm (ex. ii) and of the draft le...

D.R. Fraser and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Minister of National Revenue

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC120

Lord Macmillan: In the fiscal year 1940-41 the appellant company, in pursuance of their business as lumbermen, held three Government licences under which they cut timber in three areas of Crown Land in the Province of Alberta. In making their income tax return for the year they deducted a sum which they claimed as an allowance for depletion of the timber included in their licences at the rate of $1.40 per thousand feet of timber cut. To this deduction they claimed that they were entitled under S. 5 (1) (a), Dominion Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927 C. 97 which, as amended by S. 10 of 1940 C. 34, reads as follows: "5 'Income' as hereinbefore defined shall for the purposes of this Act be subject to the following exemptions and deductions : (a) The Minister in determining the income derived from mining and from oil and gas wells and timber limits may make such an allowance for the exhaustion of the mines, wells and timber limits as he may deem just and fair, and in the case of leases of mi...

M.G. Perera Vs. Andrew Vincent Peiris and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC106

Lord Uthwatt: This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon affirming the dismissal by the District Court of Colombo of an action brought by the appellant Dr. M. G. Perera' in which he claimed damages for defamatory libel from the respondents who are the printer and owners of a newspaper called. The Ceylon Daily News. The libel complained of appeared in the issue of that paper of 25th May 1943, and consisted of an extract from the published report of a Commissioner who had been appointed under statutory powers to enquire into certain matters. The extract ran as follows : "Dr. M. G. Perera who gave evidence was completely lacking in frankness and pretended that he knew very much less about the transaction than he actually did." [2] The respondents took all defences. They denied that the words were defamatory-a formal defence in the circumstances. The other defences were not formal. They pleaded justification in the sense that the statement was true and that its publ...