Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal414
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference Under Section. 66 (1), Income Tax Act. On an application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this Court.'Whether in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 6698/- paid out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes. wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to-be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (XII), Income Tax Act (as it stood, before its amendment in 1946).'2. Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell-Innes & Mr. Danbeny who were working in partnership as exchange brokers, under the name & style of Halford Smith & Co. entered into ah agreement on 22-10-1919 with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for our present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking Messrs. Mitchell-Innes & Danbeny who were the sole exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal8
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against a decision by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore disallowing certain objections raised under Section 47, Civil P. C., read with Section 168A, Bengal Tenancy Act.2. The judgment-debtor, Nareah Chandra Bose, held a patni under the predecessor-in- interest of the decree-holders opposite parties. For the realisation of arrear patni rent, the landlords obtained three decrees in succession in rent suit No. 2 of 1936 on 2lst December 1936, rent suit No. 12 of 1937 on 9th April 1938 and rent suit No. 16 of 1939 on 17th February 1940. In execution of the last of the three decrees, the defaulting patni was sold on 15th January 1942 and purchased by two of the three decree-holders. The decree-holders auction purchasers sold the patni on 4th April 1944 to one Provash Mallik, All the rent suits bad been brought in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jessore and the decree-holders applied for the transfer of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom277; (1949)51BOMLR342
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati by which he ordered a writ of certiorari to issue against respondent No. 1, who is the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Health and Local Government Department, the Province of Bombay, respondent No. 2, and Mr. Vartak, a Minister of the Government of Bombay, formerly in charge of the Health and Local Government Department, respondent No. 3. The material facts which led up to the order made by Mr. Justice Bhagwati may be briefly stated. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to January 29, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as 'Paradise' at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. v. Vakil. On January 29, 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner. All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On February 4, 1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On February 26, 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ756
Khosla, J.1. This is a petition under a. 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, XXIII [23] of 1981. The petitioner before us is Shree Kidar Nath, the keeper of the Press known as the Printers Ltd., of Ambala Cantonment. He was ordered by the East Punjab Government to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,000 as security under Section 3, Sub-section (8), Press (Emergency PowerB) Act on account of the publication of an article 'Yeh kaun aya hai' in the 'Weekly Insaf of 4th August 1948. It was alleged that this article contained matter which 'tends directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law or to excite disaffection towards the said Government' within the meaning of clause (d), Sub-section (l) of Section 4, Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The petitioner has moved this Court for the cancellation of the order of the Punjab Government.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised three points before us. He argued in the first place that incitement to violen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1949CriLJ701
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under B, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such poaeession be without lawful authority or lawful exouse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active step prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facta of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All473
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such possession be without lawful authority or lawful excuse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active steps prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Reid: The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income-tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India. [2] The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR942
Reid, J.1. The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India.2. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR442
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.I have read the judgment prepared by Mukherjea J. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of that judgment and have nothing to add.Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court dated November 14, 1944, by which the learned Judges reversed a decree of dismissal made by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore, in a suit for partition and accounts.2. The material facts are not controverted and may be briefly stated as follows. The properties which are described in the schedules to the plaint belonged admittedly to one Kedar Nath Das, who died on December 18, 1920, leaving behind him a will which was executed on July 5, 1916. The near relatives of Kedar who survived him were his wife Golapmoni, two sons-Bejoy Sashi and Benoy Sashi-and two daughters Hemnalini and Mrinalini. There were four grandsons also born during the life-time of the testator and actually in existence at the date of his death, three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad22
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The three charges against the petitioners were (1) that in the mouth of April or May 1946 they cheated Albert Correa, P. W. 10, at Verapurzha in Travancore State, (2) that about the month of March 1946 they cheated P. W. 11, V. Hormis, at Cheranallur in Cochin state and (3) that in about February 1946, again at Cheranallur in Cochin, they cheated P. W. 12, M. C. Simon, and that they committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 37, Penal Code, The petitioners have applied to have these charges quashed.2. On the date of the offences complained of the accused were 'native Indian subjects of His Majesty within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (1), Penal Code, as it stood on that date. The offences were alleged to have been committed in Travancore and Cochin which were beyond 'British India' within the meaning of Section 4(1), Penal Code. Section 188, Criminal P. C., prescribed the sanction of the political agent or of a local Government before cr...
Tag this Judgment!