Mumbai Court December 1968 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Business Profits Tax, Bombay City I Vs. Tata Iron and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR450(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred for our decision : '1. Whether, on the facts of this case, the two sums of Rs. 9,56,838 in the chargeable accounting period ended March 31, 1947, and Rs. 10,15,242 in the chargeable accounting period end March 31, 1949, shown in the accounts with the narration 'contribution from outside parties for capital expenditure' are reserves coming within the scope of Schedule II, rule 2, of the Business Profits Tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the investments referable to the contribution from employees can be deducted under Schedule II, rule 2, in the assessment for the chargeable accounting period ended March 31, 1947 ?' 2. Though the questions are couched in different forms the short question that we have to determine is whether the amount of the 'contribution from outside parties for capital expenditure' and the amount pertaining to half of the works provident fund, namely, Rs. 77,79,221, being the amount contributed by the employ...
Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Bom79; (1969)71BOMLR599; 1970CriLJ325
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an appealfiled by two accused persons who have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, of offences relating to the illegal importation and possession of 6920 Tolas of gold, under Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 as well as under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. It may be mentioned that the accused were also charged under R. 126-P of the Defence of India (Amend-ment) Rules, 1963, but were acquitted ofthat offence.2. The facts of the prosecution caseare that one Jokhi who was, at the material time, an Assistant Collector of Customs, at Bombay, received some information on the night of 21st March 1965 that gold was going to be smuggled into India from a place near the bridge on the Bassein Vajreshwari Road, that he, therefore,contacted witness Wagh who was then working as Deputy Superintendent under him, and the said Jokhi, accompanied by Wagh and two inspectors named Jadhav and Surti and a constable of that department, le...
S.S. Shirgaonkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR576(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question required to be considered on this reference relates to the legality of the section 34(1)(b) proceedings instituted against the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52. 2. The assessee was a shareholder in a limited company, to which the provisions of section 23A were applied for the assessment year 1951-52 and the dividend of Rs. 23,352 was deemed to have been distributed to the assessee as on October 29, 1950. The order under section 23A was passed on the 28th March, 1956, but long before that the original assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 also had been completed. In view of this order the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 34(1)(b) to the assessee for the assessment year 1952-53, which was served on the assessee on the 11th September, 1956. The assessment was subsequently completed and the amount of Rs. 23,352 was added to the total income as determined in the original assessment. The assessee appeal...
Whittle Anderson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: [1971]79ITR613(Bom)
Kotval, C.J.1. The sole question referred for our decision is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the machinery was 'used' so as to attract the operation of the second proviso to section 10(2) (vii) of the 1922 Act is right in law ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the previous account year August 1, 1956, to July 31, 1957. The question arises under the following circumstances : The assessee, Whittle Anderson Ltd., now in voluntary liquidation, were engaged in the business of running ginning and pressing factories at Viramgam in Gujarat and other places. The assessee owned two presses at the ginning and pressing trade is a seasonal trade. It is carried on only during the time that the cotton season is on. It is not in dispute that in the present case the cotton season was from March till the end of May, or, as has been stated in the statement of the case, till the beginn...
K.J. Somaiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: [1971]79ITR631(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J. 1. The question raised in this reference under section 66(1) are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 18,237 is liable to be allowed as a deduction under the provisions of section 10(2) (xi) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 12(2) of the sum of Rs. 26,800 representing unrealised dividends taxed in earlier year in computing the total income for the assessment year 1960-61 ?' 2. The assessee was a shareholder and director of the Famous Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which was carrying on the business of distributing cinema films. The assessee held 1/3 of the subscribed share capital of the said company. He had made advances to the said company from time to time although he was not a money-lender an was not carrying on any money-landing business. The assessee, however, had other lines of business. In the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-...
Damodardas Bhagavandas (Private) Ltd. Vs. Poona Labour Union and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ496Bom
Madon, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution which seeks to set aside an award dated 11 July, 1966 made by respondent 2, the industrial tribunal, Bombay, and an order dated 13 September, 1966 made by respondent 2, holding that he had no jurisdiction to set aside the said award and dismissing the petitioner's application to set it aside. 2. Respondent 1 is a trade union which represents the workmen of the petitioner-company. On 12 April, 1965, certain demands were raised by respondent 1 on behalf of the petitioner's workmen. On 13 July, 1965 the demands of the petitioner's workmen relating to fixing of pay-scales, leave and permanency were admitted in conciliation by the conciliation officer. As the conciliation proceedings proved infructuous, the conciliation officer, on 31 December, 1965, made his report to the Government of Maharashtra under S. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 16 February, 1966, the Government of Maharashtra referred the said demand...
Pushpabai Shankarlal Sura Vs. Official Liquidator, Sholapur Oil Mills ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1968
Reported in: [1970]40CompCas1017(Bom); 1969MhLJ717
Patel, J.1. On November 1, 1968, this appeal was before us and we had held that on the memorandum of appeal and the cross-objection, both the sides were liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the amount either decreed or disallowed. A note was subsequently filed that to such a case the provisions of article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), should be applicable and not Schedule I, article 1 or 7 of the said Act as held by us. We have, therefore, reheard, the matter.2. The order in the present case is made in a winding up proceeding under circumstances which we have already stated in our order dated November 1, 1968. The two provisions which are relevant for the present purposes and which need be considered are Schedule I, article7, and Schedule II, article 13 of the said Act. Schedule I, article 7 , of the Act, read as follows:'7. Any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive re...
T.J. Lalvani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR176(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to us on this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act : '(1) Whether there is any evidence to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the advances in question as mentioned in the petition were not made by the assessee in the course of his business '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to claim a deduction of Rs. 1,90,000 (Rupees one lakh and ninety thousand) under section 10(1) and or section 10(2)(xi) and/or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act as a bad debt or as a trading loss in the assessee's business or on general principles of accounting in ascertaining profits and gains of a business concern under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to a deduction from his total income of the proportionate legal expenses disallowed in respect of Suit N...
Poona Labour Union (Through Its Secretary) Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ291Bom
Madon, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 227 by the Poona Labour Union, a union registered under the Trade Disputes Act, 1926, for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra, respondent 1, to refer to the industrial tribunal for adjudication the dispute submitted jointly on 26 October 1965 by the petitioners and the transport manager, respondent 2, namely, the Poona Municipal Transport, a statutory committees of the Poona Municipal Corporation, running a transport service in the city of Poona. 2. On 25 February 1965 the petitioners submitted a charter of demands on behalf of the workmen of the said transport service. Respondent 2 refused to carry on any negotiations in respect of the said demands and, accordingly, on 2 June 1965 the petitioners served on the said transport manager a notice to go on strike under S. 22(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, copies of which were sent to the conciliation officer, Poona Division, the Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, and the Dep...
Sun-n-sand Hotel Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC507(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will dispose of all the three Sales Tax References and the Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising out of the same matter. 2. The references are at the instance of the assessee called the Sun-N- Sand Hotel The assessee is a hotelier and runs a well reputed hotel called the Sun-N-Sand Hotel at Juhu Beach in Bombay. The hotel has both a boarding and a lodging establishment. The customers who enter the hotel are informed of the charges they have to pay for lodging with different amenities and boarding according to their taste. They are also informed that service charges of 10 per cent, of the tariff and sales tax at five paise per rupee will also have to be paid. 3. For the three periods for which we are concerned in the Sales Tax References, viz., (1) from 1st April, 1961 to 14th December, 1962, in the first period, (2) from 15th December, 1962 to 31st March, 1963, in the second period and (3) from 1st April 1963 to 31st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›