Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-12-1923
Reported in : (1923)25BOMLR908
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Section question referred to it under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. The facts out of which the appeal has arisen are shortly as follows:-For the official year 1919-1920 the appellant Company was assessed by the Collector of Income Tax, on a sum of Rs. 61, 84, 848, alleged to be income earned in the previous year, 1918-1919. The Company claimed to deduct from this assessment a sum of 28 lacs of rupees, paid by it to certain underwriters on an issue of 7,00,000 preference shares of the Company of Rs. 100 each, as expenditure incurred by the Company for the purpose of making profits in its business. By Section 9, Sub-section 1, of this Act it was provided that the tax (i.e., the income tax ) shall be payable by an assessee under the head of 'Income derived from business, 'in respect of the profits of any business carried on by the taxpayer, and by Sub-section 2(ix), it is further provided 'tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-29-1923
Reported in : AIR1924Bom33; (1923)25BOMLR826; 76Ind.Cas.1014
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued as agriculturists for redemption of two mortgages after taking accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The first two issues were : (1) are the plaintiffs agriculturists? and (2) is any of the plaintiffs an agriculturist? On August 26, 1919, the Subordinate Judge gave findings on these two issues with the reasons. He held that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists at that time, but plaintiff No. 1 and his deceased brother were agriculturists when the mortgages in suit were passed and when the mortgage debt was incurred. On the same day he appointed two Karkuns as Commissioners to take accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and added that findings on the remaining issues would be recorded after the return of the commission. His findings on those issues are given in a judgment of April 8, 1920, when he passed orders for redemption in favour of the plaintiffs, fixing the amount payable, etc. The plaintiffs made an...
Tag this Judgment!