Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 121 results (0.037 seconds)

Dec 18 1958 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Chugandas and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-18-1958

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR847

..... the affirnative whilst mr. justice tendolkar has answered the question in the negative. the decision of the court, having regard to the provisions of s. 66a of the indian income tax act, 1922 is that the question is answered in the affirnative.(22) the applicant to pay the costs. costs to include the costs of the hearing before mr. justice tendolkar ..... was not a unit of assessment under the indian income tax act of 1918. what the legislature intended to convey was any business, on the income profits and gains whereof tax was at any income profits and gains whereof tax was at any time charged under the indian income tax act of 1918. section 2(4) of the indian income tax act of 1922 lays down that unless there is anything ..... thereafter which would have to be shown under the head proftis and gains of business, profession or vocation covered by section 10 even under the indian income tax act of 1918, if an assessee derived from income, profits and gains from a business carried on by him, he was under an obligation to show the interest received by him from securities which constituted ..... contends that when the legislature used the words any business, profession or vocation on which tax was at any time charged under the provisions of the indian income tax act,. 1918 it refered only to tax on income under the head income derived from business falling under section 9 of the indian income tax act, 1918 and on income under the head profession earnings, falling under section10 of the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1958 (HC)

Manordas Kalidas Vs. G.R. Desai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-15-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR302(Bom)

..... the expression 'any case' in reference to the transfer thereof. that decision cannot be held to lay down that whenever the expression 'any case' or 'cases' appears under the income-tax act, it must of necessity be interpreted to mean 'pending case.' 10. the expression 'cases' within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 5 came up for consideration ..... 5 is wide enough to cover completed assessments. in support of the argument that the expression 'cases' covers completed assessments, strong reliance was placed on section 64 of the income-tax act and in particular sub-section (5) thereof. the provisions of section 64, in so far as they are material for the purpose of the present petition are as under ..... central), bombay. for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54 the requisite notices under section 22(2) were issued by the income-tax officer, market ward, bombay. provisional assessments under section 23b of the income-tax act were made by the additional income-tax officer, section v (central), bombay, for those years. in respect of assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 ..... (2) of section 5 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, assigned the case of petitioner to the commissioner of income-tax (central), bombay. on 22nd july, 1954, the commissioner of income-tax (central), bombay, in pursuance of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, assigned the case of the petitioner to the additional income-tax officer, section v (central), bombay and directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1958 (HC)

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. Vs. their Wo ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-24-1958

Reported in : (1959)IILLJ124Bom

..... mr. justice mack, observed as follows : 'an aspect which struck me forcibly as regards a flat rate of bonus, is that under s. 10(x) of the indian income tax act payment of bonus or a commission for services rendered is one of several allowances made before taxable profits or gains of a business are computed. a generous grant of a ..... i see no reason to differ from the view taken in that case. the argument that the net profits have been reduced by reason of the 'high rate of income tax' is again advanced this year and on this point also i see no reason to alter the view taken by me in that case. 23. the company has ..... in the year came to rs. 1,83,094 so that the average is even higher. but it has to be borne in mind that that leveller, the income tax, would lop off a large portion of such him salaries. annexure d to the statement of claim shows that out of the 20 executive officers, 17 were americans ..... paid, no bonus. the total cost to the company for bonus to workmen and supervisory staff would be rs. 15,84,924. the company would save on the income tax about 61.5 np. in the rupee. being a private limited company, it would be liable to this higher rate of taxation for if it does not declare any ..... burden to the company of sic months' basic wages as bonus would be roughly over rs. 6 lakhs. the loss to the state by way of rebate on income tax by reason of the payment of bonus of 1,538 workmen and 218 supervisors would be over rs. 9 lakhs. in the case of the dispute between amalgamations, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1958 (HC)

W.W. Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Bombay and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom363; (1959)61BOMLR829; ILR1959Bom1267

..... provinces of east and west bengal.15. we now turn to the facts in the supreme court case in : [1951]19itr132(sc) . they in brief are:'the income-tax officer, dacca, acting under the bengal agricultural income-tax act, 1944, sent by registered post a notice to the manager of an estate belonging to the tripura state but situated in bengal calling upon the latter to ..... ruler, instituted a suit in june 1946, against the province of bengal & the income-tax officer, in the court of the subordinate judge of dacca for a declaration that the said act in so far as it purported to impose a liability to pay agricultural income-tax on the plaintiff was ultra vires and void, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the ..... furnish a return of the agricultural income derived from the estate during the previous year. the notices was received by the manager in the tripura state. the state, by its then ..... defendants from taking any steps to assess the plaintiff. the suit was subsequently transferred to the court of the subordinate judge of alipore. the partition of india under the indian independence act took place on 15-8-1947 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1958 (HC)

Abdul Karim Husseinbhai Lakdawala Vs. Haji Mahomed HusseIn Haji Abdulr ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-14-1958

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR625

..... the extent of the payment made. sub-rule (3) of order xxi, rule 2 of the civil procedure code is at best a rule of evidence; whereas section 46(54) of the income-tax act enacts a provision which extinguishes liability. in the absence of an intention clearly expressed or necessarily implied in the statute providing for that extinction we will not be justified in ..... . 11,508-9-0 to the judgment-debtor. against that order the judgment-creditor has appealed to this court.3. section 46(5a) of the income-tax act in so far as it is material provides that the income-tax officer may by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who ..... holding that the statutory discharge of liability operates only when the payment is certified. by reason of the statutory discharge of liability under section 46(5a) of the income-tax act, the decree-holder becomes incompetent to execute the decree for the amount paid by the judgment-debtor on behalf of the assessee to the ..... , paid an amount of rs. 11,508-9-0 which was payable by the heirs of kadarbhai to the income-tax department and the judgment-debtor was to that extent discharged from liability, by virtue of section 46(5a) of the income-tax act.2. the learned judge accepted the contention of the judgment-debtor and directed that execution do proceed after giving credit for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1958 (HC)

Bhagwandas Kevaldas Vs. N.D. Mehrotra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-13-1958

Reported in : [1959]36ITR538(Bom)

..... that petition and directed that the petition should be heard on merits. therefore, mr. joshi is right when he says that the commissioner of income-tax did not have before him the decision of this court in the case of shantilal rawji. the argument has proceeded that it cannot be said ..... law lord very forcibly brought out the full effect of the legal fiction. the view which we ultimately took of the matter was that the income-tax officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order of rectification. by operation of the deeming provision, which was retrospective in its operation, it was ..... into operation respectively from 1st april, 1952. on 5th december, 1956, the petitioner went in revision to the commissioner of income-tax and on 1st february, 1958, the commissioner of income-tax substantially dismissed the revision application, but he modified the order and directed that penal interest should be charged for a shorter ..... was being charged under section 18a(6). the original assessment order was made on 31st march, 1953, and the order of rectification made by the income-tax officer under section 35 was made on 4th october, 1956. in the meantime, proviso 5 was added to section 18a(6) and retrospective operation ..... retrospective effect from 1st april, 1952, must be deemed to have been part of the act on the date of the assessment order. that being the position, the conclusion we reached was that the income-tax officer had vested in him a discretion to reduce or waive the interest payable by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1958 (HC)

Lata Mangeshkar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-07-1958

Reported in : [1959]36ITR527(Bom)

..... not possible to hold that the omission to charge interest must necessarily be ascribed to an error of law on the part of the income-tax officer and that the income-tax officer had, therefore, no jurisdiction to pass the order of rectification. the argument of counsel for the assessee is that the present case ..... , the fifth proviso was not there. it was incorporated in sub-section (6) by the indian income-tax (amendment) act, 1953. let us, therefore, see how the relevant provisions of section 18a read before the amending act of 1953. the language of sub-section (6) was in terms mandatory and calculation had to be ..... with retrospective effect from 1st april, 1952, (and which must, therefore, be deemed to have been part of the act on the date of the assessment order) vested a discretion in the income-tax officer to reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee, and finally we decided in that case that as ..... made in accordance with the provisions laid down in sub-section (6) in a case which fell either under sub-section (6) or sub-section (8). there was no discretion of any kind or power of any kind vested in the income-tax ..... per cent. of the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment, so far as such tax relates to income to which the provisions of section 18 do not apply and so far as it is not due to variations in the rates of tax made by the finance act enacted for the year .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1958 (HC)

New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N.U. Raval, Incom ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-06-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR41(Bom)

..... for the year ending on the 31st day of march, 1951, and no order has been made under sub-section (1) of section 23a of the income tax act, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of one anna per rupee on the amount of such excess.' 4. for the assessment year 1951-52 ( ..... of the same argument. it will be convenient to set out here section 28 of the finance act of 1956, whereby section 35(10) was introduced for the first time in the income-tax act : 'the amendments made in the income-tax act by section 4 and clause (b) of section 15 shall be deemed to have come into ..... or a writ of prohibition raises a rather important question of the construction of section 35(10) of the income-tax act. sub-section (10) of section 35 was introduced by amendment brought about by the finance act, 1956. we shall have occasion to refer to the amendment a little later in our judgment. the facts ..... company on which rebate had been allowed 'shall be deemed to have been made the subject of incorrect relief under this act.' in such a case the income-tax officer is authorised to recompute the tax payable by the company by reducing the rebate originally allowed as if the recomputation is a rectification of a mistake apparent ..... this argument does not really held the respondent's case because the order passed by the income-tax officer under section 18a (5) cannot be said to be final in the literal sense 35 of the act. what the income-tax officer has purported to do in the present case is not to revise his order in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1958 (HC)

New Shorrock Spg. and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N.U. Raval, Income-ta ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-06-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Bom477; (1959)61BOMLR618; ILR1959Bom1256

..... for the assessment for the year ending on 31-3-1951. and no order has been made under sub-section (1) of section 23a of the income-tax act, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of one anna per rupee on the amount of such excess.'4. for the assessment year 1951-52 ..... of the same argument. it will be convenient to set out here section 28 of the finance act of 1956 whereby section 35(10) was introduced for the first time in the income-tax act:'the amendments made in the income-tax act by section 4 and clause (b) of section 15 shall be deemed to have come into ..... or a writ of prohibition raises a rather important question of the construction of section 35 (10) of the income-tax act. sub-section (10) of section 35 was introduced by amendment brought about by the finance act, 1956. we shall have occasion to refer to the amendment little later in our judgment. the facts succinctly stated ..... be final in the literal sense of the word. this order was and continued to be liable to be modified under section 35 of the act. what the income-tax officer has purported to do in the present case is not to revise his order in the light of the retrospective amendment made by section 13 ..... on which rebate had been allowed 'shall be deemed to have been made the subject of incorrect relief under this act.' in such a case the income-tax officer is authorised to recompute the tax payable by the company by reducing the rebate originally allowed as if the recomputation is a rectification of a mistake apparent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1958 (HC)

Ahmedabad Laxmi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. H.K. Sondhi, Income-tax Offi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-06-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR50(Bom)

..... provision of clause (ii) of the proviso to paragraph b of part i of the schedules to the finance acts above referred to, be deemed to have been made subject of incorrect relief under this act, and the income-tax officer shall recompute the tax payable by the company by reducing the rebate originally allowed, as if the re-computation is rectification of a mistake ..... . it is also contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. it is also stated that the income-tax officer acted on certain his mined to the facts of the case before passing that order and simply acted on certain surmises of his own which, it is said, were wholly unwarranted. section 35 (10) is in following terms : 'where ..... income-tax was allowed as aforesaid is availed of by the company, wholly or partly, for declaring dividends in any year, the amount or that part of ..... day of april of the year 1948 to 1955 inclusive, a rebate of income-tax was allowed to a company on a part of its total income under clause (i) of the proviso to paragraph b of part i of the relevant schedules to the finance acts specifying the rates of tax for the relevant year, and subsequently the amount on which the rebate of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //