Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom46; (1947)49BOMLR627
Chagla, J.1. The assessee in this case had an income of 65,064 dollars in the accounting year 1938-39 which accrued to her in Hongkong. She was taxed on this income on the accrual basis and conformably to the third proviso to Section 4(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act she was exempted to the extent of Rs. 4,500. In the accounting year 1939-40 her foreign income which accrued to her in Hongkong was 48,847 dollars and in that year also she was exempted to the extent of Rs. 4,500. In the year 1940-41 she brought into British India 260,169 dollars which included the sum of Rs. 9,000 which had been exempted as I have mentioned before. The taxing authorities contend that this sum of Rs. 9,000 is liable to tax and the assessee, on the other hand, contends that she having been once exempted, this amount is not liable to tax. The answer to this question depends upon a proper construction of the third proviso to Section 4(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This proviso lays down that if in any year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR725
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These five references raise common questions of law. All these references were pending before the High Court of Judicature, Deccan States, Kolhapur, and they have been transferred to us after the State of Phaltan was merged in the Province of Bombay.2. The assessee company was incorporated in the Phaltan State in the year 1933 as a private limited company and it was converted into a public limited company on September 17, 1942. During the accounting year ending on September 30, 1938, this company made a profit of Rs. 3,94,653, but it did not distribute any part of these profits by way of dividends to its shareholders who were three in number. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 23A (1) of the Act and ordered that all the assessable profits of the company should be deemed to have been distributed amongst the shareholders of the company. After the company was converted into a public company on September 17, 1942, an order was issued by the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR1(P& H)
HARNAM SINGH, J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions referred for decision to the high court are :'(1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and in view of the terms of section 25A of the Act, an order under section 25A should have been passed by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment year 1943-44 although the partition the partition on the basis of which the order was claimed took place beyond the year of account, the income from which was the subject-matter of assessment ?(2) Whether a reference to arbitration with a view to have the joint family property partitioned in definite portions legally amounts to a partition of the joint family property amongst the various members or groups of members in definite portions within the terms of sections (1), of the act ?'The facts so far as material are that the applicant were assessed as Hindu undivided family during the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H139
Teja Singh, J.1. Jhabar Mai Chokham, who claims to be one of the shareholders and creditors of the Punjab Pictures Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, applied to this Court under Sections 162, and 176, Companies Act for having the company wound up and for appointment of a Provisional Liquidator. The record shows that the petition was prepared and signed by the petitioner on 5th December, but was actually instituted in this Court on the 8th. It came up before a learned Judge in the presence of the petitioner's counsel on the 9th and the following order was made:Praya that at least a month's time be granted as he wishes to put in further material to complete the petition. To come up after the winter vacation.The Court remained closed first for X-mas vacation and then for the winter vacation from 24th December 1947 to 15th February 1948, both days inclusive and reopened on 16th February. On 25th February, the petitioner put in an affidavit and produced a few do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom208; (1935)37BOMLR82
Murphy, J.1. This appeal arises out of regular civil suit No. 191 of 1915, which has had a somewhat chequered career. It was an administration suit, filed in 1915, for the administration of the estate of one Tyeballi, who died in 1912, and his father Alibhai, who died in October, 1909. The suit went on, and a preliminary decree was passed in March, 1924. There was an appeal against that decree which was heard by Marten C. J. and Crump J. The appeal was lodged by the present defendant No. 7, who is now one of the respondents before us, and it was dismissed. But cross-objections had been put in by defendant No, 3 and these were considered by the learned Chief Justice, who said :-As regards the cross-objections, they are based on the allegation that defendant No. 3, Namtulla, never assigned her interest to defendant No, 7, Safiabu. The objections bear date March 16, 1925, but do not seem to have been formally admitted till February 17, 1927. It is consequently rather startling to find thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR1006
George Lowndes, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a decision of the High Court of Bengal arising out of certain land acquisition proceedings taken lor the purposes of the Calcutta Improvement Act (Bengal V of 1911).2. The property in question belonged to the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society, Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Society), and the questions sought to be raised by the appeals are as to the compensation to bo awarded. Neither party was satisfied with the High Court's decision. The Secretary of State applied for a certificate enabling an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The Society objected that no appeal lay, but asked in effect that if a certificate were granted to the Secretary of State, a certificate should also be granted to them. The High Court granted certificates to both parties. The appeals were duly admitted and are before the Board for determination. The Society contend, as they did in the High Court, that no appeal is competent, and this que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H150; 1950CriLJ725
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The petitioner before us is K. Narendra, Printer and Publisher of the Urdu newspaper 'The Daily Pratap' of New Delhi. The petitioner was ordered to deposit a security of Bs. 6000 Under Section 9 (1), Press Aot and the amount was depoaited by the petitioner on and June 1948. By his Order No. F-8 11/48 Press, dated 10th December 1948, Mr, Shankar Parshad, Chief Commissioner of Delhi, forfeited the amount of the security because certain articles and news items published in a number of issues of the Daily Pratap came within the mischief of 8. 4 (i), Press Act. The offending material was printed in seven different issues of the newspaper. Of these five are news items and two are editorial comments. It was alleged that the subject-matter of these articles and news items fell within Clauses (b), (d) and (h) of Section 4 (1), Press Act. The petitioner's application is directed against the order of forfeiture pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H190
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,500 against the Governor-General in Council. The facts briefly stated are as follows:2. On 20th May 1943, the Sutlej Cotton Mills, Okara, consigned 15 bales of cotton dhotis from Okara to Delhi and sent the railway receipt to Messrs. Jallan and Sons Ltd., Delhi, duly endorsed in their favour. The railway receipt was presented by Jallan and Sons to the railway at Delhi on 22nd and 23rd June 1943 and. they were given delivery of 1675 pairs of dhotis. The rest of consignment, consisting of 725 pairs of dhotis, had got damaged during transit and accordingly Jallan and Sons refused to accept them. A correspondence then ensued between Jallan and Sons on one side and the railway on the other and when nothing came out of it, the former after having served the railway with a notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., instituted the suit on 30th May 1944. The plaintiffs alleged that so far as the dhotis of which delivery w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at fort William in Bengal, made on 19-7-1944. [2] On 14-6-1944, the High Court, on the application of the respondents, issued a rule nisi calling upon the appellant to show cause why an information in the nature of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him "astobywhatauthorityheisexercisingandperformingorclaimingtoexerciseorperformthepowersanddutieswhichmaybeperformedorexercisedbytheChairmanandtheCommissionersoftheHowrahMunicipality." By the said order of the 19-7-1944, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi. On 14-12-1944, the High Court ordered that the appellant's appeal to His Majesty in Council against the said order of 19-7-1944, be admitted. [3] The facts leading to the issue of the said orders of the High Court are simple. On 9-6-1944, His Excellency the Governor of Bengal, purporting to act under the powers conferred on him by R. 51F, Defence of India Rules, made an order superseding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD UTHWATT : This is an appeal by leave of the Federal Court of India from a judgment of that Court dismissing an appeal by the appellant, Wallace Brothers and Co. Ltd., from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay answering in favour of the respondent the Commissioner of Income - tax, Bombay District certain questions of law referred to the High Court by the Income - tax Appellate Tribunal. [2] Two questions are in issue: first the validity of certain provisions of the Indian Income - tax Act, 1922 - 1939, by virtue of which there was made on the appellant Company an assessment to income - tax on income which included income arising without British India, and second, the jurisdiction of a particular income - tax officer to make that assessment. [3] The directly relevant provisions of the Income - tax Act, 1922 - 1939, are contained in Ss. 3, 4, 4A and 64. These so far as it is necessary to state them are as follows: 3. Where any Act of the Central Legislature enacts that Income - tax...
Tag this Judgment!