Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Latest Privy Council judgments
Kalachitti Bhimavva Vs. Gurikara Nagappa and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ627
Govinda Menon, J.1. In a small cause suit, S.C. No. 219 of 1939 on the file of the District. Munsif's Court, Hospet, the present appellant obtained a decree for a sum of money against one Obavva, the third defendant in this suit and another Bhimappa, the second defendant in this suit. On his attaching survey No. 601 in Kadligi village as belonging to Obavva, certain persons claimed those properties. One Muddabappa a cousin of Obavva claimed by E.A. No. 842 of 1941 his right to possession of a part of the property and that claim was allowed by the District Munsiff. No further proceedings have been taken to get that order set aside under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code and it has hence become final. The three uncles of Obavva, being her father's step-brothers filed a claim petition stating that they are entitled to the rest of the property. This claim was enquired into by the District Munsiff' who rejected it and thereupon the claimants as plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 575 of 1942 ou...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Chand Lal Babu Vs. Kamalaksha Chaudhury and Others
Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1949PC239
Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal passed in its civil revisional jurisdiction dated 13th August 1943, which set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dated 18th July 1942, rejecting the petition of respondents 1 to 10 under Ss. 30 and 36 (6) (a) (ii), Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 (Act x [10] of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for re-opening a mortgage decree dated 9th October 1931, passed against the respondents in mortgage Suit No. 198 of 1930. [2] The questions argued upon this appeal were first, a preliminary objection taken by the respondents that this appeal is incompetent; secondly, a preliminary objection taken by the appellant that the revision application to the High Court from which this appeal is brought was incompetent. Apart from these preliminary objections the only two matters urged against the order of the High Court, appealed from were first, that the loan to which t...
Tag this Judgment!The Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR675
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the two sums of Rs. 8,25,000 and Rs. 5,75,000 received by the assessee, the Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd., Bombay, on September 8, 1944, and on December 22, 1944, respectively, are subject to tax.2. The company came to receive these two sums in these circumstances. A fire broke out in the company's mills on January 18, 1944, with the result that the buildings, etc, were destroyed and there was a cessation of the manufacturing activities of the company. The company had taken out a policy with the South India Fire and General Insurance Company, Limited, and with other insurance companies of the nature known as 'Consequential Loss Policies.' These policies indemnified the company against any loss of profits which might result as a consequence of any fire that may break out, and it is not disputed before us that these two sums were received by the assessee company as an indemnity for the loss suffered by them of their prof...
Tag this Judgment!Kikabhoy Chandabhoy and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom6
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessees are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Kikabhoy Chandabhoy. Kikabhoy Chandabhoy himself was the sole proprietor of this firm and then there were changes in the constitution of that firm. He took Bai Patima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in samvat year 1994 (1938-39) under an instrument dated 13th October 1938. Kikabhoy died on 22nd March 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated 29th March 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from 1st April 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of Abbasbhai Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on 30th October 1942.2. In the assessment of this firm for the year 1942-43 a claim was made that the firm was entitled to relief both with regard to income-tax and super-tax under Section 25 (3) and Section 25 (4)...
Tag this Judgment!Kikabhoy Chandabhoy Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR677
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assesses are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Kikabhoy Chandabhoy. Kikabhoy Chandabhoy himself was the sole proprietor of this firm and then there were changes in the constitution of that firm. He took Bai Fatima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in samvat year 1994 (1938-39) under an instrument dated October 13, 1938. Kikabhoy died on March 22, 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated March 29, 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from April 1, 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of Abbasbhai Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on October 30; 1942.2. In the assessment of this firm, for the year 1942-43 a claim was made that the firm was entitled to relief both with regard to income-tax and super-tax under Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Iron and Steel Works
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom400; (1949)51BOMLR684
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the facts necessary to be stated are that the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assesses on March 16, 1946, and the notice of demand was served on the assesses on April 6, 1946. The assesses wanted to prefer an appeal against that assessment, and the appeal was received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, on June 3, 1946.2. Now under Section 30 a statutory right is given to the assesses to prefer an appeal against an order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, but a time limit is prescribed within which the appeal has to be preferred, and that time limit is thirty days. Therefore admittedly when the appeal was presented, the appeal was out of time. On that, the assesses made an application to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Mysore Iron and Steel Work ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR478(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - This reference raises a very short point as to the construction of Section 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act and the facts necessary to be stated are that the Income-tax Officer made an assessment on the assessee on the March 16, 1946. The assessee wanted to prefer an appeal against that assessment, and the appeal was received in the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, B-Range, on the June 3, 1946.Now under section 30 a statutory right is given to the assessee to prefer an appeal against an order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer; but a time limits is prescribed within which the appeal has to be preferred, and that time limit is thirty days. Therefore admitedly when the appeal was presented, the appeal was out of time. On that, the assessee made an application to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay and declined to entertain the appeal. From this order of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom377; [1949]17ITR520(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that arises in this reference is whether the two sums of Rs. 8,25,000 and Rs. 5,75,000 received by the assessee, the Raghuvanshi Mills, Ltd., Bombay, on September 8, 1944, and on December 22, 1944, respectively, are subjected to tax.The company came to receive these two sums in these circumstances. A fire broke out in the companys mills on January 18, 1944, with the result that the buildings, etc., were destroyed and there was a cesation of the manufacturing activities of the company. The company had taken out a policy with the South India Fire and General Insurance Company, Ltd., and with other insurance companies of the nature known as 'Consequential Loss Policies.' These policies idemnified the company against any loss of profits which might result as a consequence of any fire that may break out, and it is not disputed before us that these two sums were received by the assessee company as an indemnity for the loss suffered by them of their profits because...
Tag this Judgment!Kikabhoy Chandabhoy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR523(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assessee are a restored partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Kikabhoy Chandabhoy. Kikabhoy Chandabhoy himself was the sole proprietor of this firm and then there were changes in the constitution of that firm. He took Bai Fatima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in Samvat year, 1944 (1938-39) under an instrument dated October 13, 1938. Kikabhoy died on March 22, 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated March 29, 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from April1, 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of the Abbashabi Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on October 30, 1942.In the assessment of this firm for the year 1942-43 a claim was made that the firm was entitled to relief both with regard to income-tax and super-tax under Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Corporation, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1950]18ITR28(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that is raised in this reference is really covered by the decision which my brother and I gave and which is reported in Mohsin Rehman Penkar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay city. In that case we held that if a mercantile system of accounting is adopted and a certain liability is allowed by the Income-tax department as a permissible deduction, and if subsequently that liability is discharged not by actual payment by the assessee but by remission of liability by the creditor, then the remission of liability can never be considered as an income which would be liable to tax. The facts here are almost identical. The assessee who dealt in shares in curred a loss of Rs. 22,027 in forward share dealings. This loss was duly adjusted against the business receipts in the assessment for the year 1943-44 which meant that the department accepted the sum of Rs. 22,027 as a permissible deduction. In the subsequent year this liability was settled by the assessee paying...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6688
- 6689
- 6690
- 6691
- 6692
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- 6698
- Next ›
- Last »