Mumbai Court October 1972 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.
Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR566(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question that is referred for our determination is : 'Whether the hiring by M/s. Pure Products and Madhu Canning Ltd. to the assessee-company of a godown belonging to and used by the former for its business purposes amounted to 'transfer' to the latter within the meaning of the phrase 'the transfer to a new business of building previously used in any other business' occurring in section 15C (2) (i) /' 2. The question that is referred to us relates to the period 1958-59 and 1959-60, corresponding to the accounting years ending 30th September of 1957 and 1958, respectively. The assessee-company was incorporated in October, 1952, with the object of carrying on the business of sale and manufacture of gelatin capsules, etc. It took on monthly lease a huge compound pertaining to and used for its business by Messers. Pure Products & Madhu Canning Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The facto...
Jainarayan Mandlal Vs. Agarwal Panch Mandal, Khamgaon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom167; 1973MhLJ49
ORDER1. The present revision is directed against the order dated October 29, 1968 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khamgaon, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint so as to add averments in the plaint to the effect that they were suing in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure.2. Though the application was styled as an application for amendment, the amendments sought were that the suit property belonged to the Agarwal community of Khamgaon and the plaintiffs were suing as such for and on behalf of the community and they seek leave as required by Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, the application was referable to the power of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 and consequently the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.3. However, the learned Court treated it as merely an application for amendment and on that footing allowed it and now the plaint stands amended, whereby the cause title in the plaint is...
Rambilas Mohanlal Kabra and anr. Vs. Krishnabal Motilal Agrawal and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Bom168; 1973MhLJ233
ORDER1. This revision has been filed by the original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against an order dated August 19, 1970, whereby the learned Judge rejected an application filed by those defendants on July 8, 1970. That application sought to raise a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to entertain the suit as was filed on the plea that it involved a question of title and the question as to who is the landlord of the defendants. Though, admittedly no specific issue was drawn, the learned Judge while rejecting the said application, pointed out that the suit was tenable in that Court. In sum, the Court held that the suit was an ejectment suit based upon the cause of action that arises usually between the landlord and the tenant and, therefore, it has the jurisdiction to try the same.2. The pleadings of the parties may be noticed before the contentions in this revision application are appreciated. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, claiming as trustees of a private ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. D.L. Kanhere and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR535(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following two questions are referred to us for our determination : 'Whether the income from the lease of the Kohinoor Cinema building, which had been equipped as a cinema theatre, is assessable under section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under section 9 of the Ac ?' and 'Whether the mortgage interest allocated to the building, K (Rs. 28,052 and Rs. 31,583, as the case may be), is an admissible deduction properties (other than 'the building, K') for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-6 ?' 2. Questions referred to us arise out of the reassessment made upon the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59 and 1959-60, the relevant accounting years being the corresponding financial years ending March 31, 1958, and March 31, 1959. 3. The assessee is the owner of three house properties. One of them has been equipped as a cinema theatre. All the three house properties were mortgaged with ...
Hargovindsingh Narainsing, Present Karta, Damodardas Hargovindsingh Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR435(Bom)
Kantawala, J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question that is referred for determination is : 'Whether proceedings under section 34 for the assessment year 1956-57 were validly initiated against the assessee, Hindu undivided family, and the assessment completed against it within the time-limit applicable to it ?' 2. The case relates to the assessment year 1956-57 for which the relevant previous year is from May 9, 1954, to May 31, 1955. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, namely, Messrs. Hargovindsingh Narainsing. For the assessment year 1956-57 on May 3, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) of the Act, in the name of 'Shri Hargovindsingh Narainsing, C/o. Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay'. This notice was served upon the court receiver on May 7, 1956. In response to this notice the court receiver filed three separate returns for the accounting year under his signature. These returns are for the followi...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR380(Bom)
Kantawala, J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the question that is referred for our determination is : 'Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Wholesale Cloth Dealer's Importers' Group did not form a partnership ?' 2. Due to scarcity of cloth in C.P. and Berar, the Government evolved a scheme for distribution of cloth under its supervision and control. Three categories of dealers in the new set up were classified. Under this scheme they were known as importers, semi-wholesalers and retailers. Government selected and appointed certain people out of the wholesale dealers of cloth who were importers of cloth from other States as a group of importers. These importers were not permitted to do business in cloth except as directed by the Government; no person other than a person or a party who was selected in the importers' group could import textile cloth into...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. J. Voyantizies and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR345(Bom)
K.K. Desai, C.J. 1. In the reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question of law referred to this court reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 82,460 is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1948-49, the relevant previous year being the calender year ending 31st December, 1947. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : Under an agreement of lease dated 21st July, 1942, the relevant previous year being the calender year ending 31st December, 1947. The facts which requires to be noticed are as follows : Under an agreement of lease dated 21st July, 1942, the assessee agreed to become a tenant of certain premises situated at plts. Nos. 7 and 12, Marine Drive, for using the premises as a boarding and lording hotel. The lease was to commence from the date the building was ready and completely constructed and possession was delivered to the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Jamnadas Khimji Kothari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR105(Bom)
K.K. Desai, C.J. 1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the two questions law referred to us read as under : '1. Whether, on the facts of the case, there was loan or advance of Rs. 2,55,135 within the meaning of section 12(1B) read with section 2(6A)(e) by the company to the shareholder 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the phrase 'accumulated profits', as used in section 2(6A)(e) means such profits as disclosed by the company's balance-sheet or such disclosed profits subject to adjustments as required by the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts which require to be noticed are as follows : The questions relate to the assessment year 1955-56. The relevant previous year is the year ending 31st March, 1955. The assessee was the shareholder and director of Purshottam Mathuradas and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). There is no dispute about the fact that in connection with the questions which arose between ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR130(Bom)
Kantawala, J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question is referred to us for determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 4,38,472 and Rs. 2,27,342 were properly held to be capital profits ?' 2. This reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, the relevant previous years being the years ending October 31, 1951, and October 31, 1952, respectively. During these assessment years, the assessee was a private limited company and its share capital was held by the members of the Mahindra family and their nominees. The assessee-company's business consisted, amongst others, in import and sale of diesel engines. 3. In or about the year 1947, the assessee-company came across a suggestion regarding manufacture of diesel engines in India, for lift irrigation purpose from one Kilberi, an American citizen. The said manufacture was to be done with the machinery to ...
Ramanlal Amarnath (Agency) Ltd. (In Voluntary Liquidation) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR250(Bom)
Kantawala, J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question that is referred for determination is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 7,318 could be included in the income of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1961-62, under the provisions of section 10 (2A) or section 12 (5) ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company, which has gone into voluntary liquidation on December 31, 1959. The assessee-company was the selling agent of the National Rayon Corporation Ltd. before the voluntary liquidation proceedings were commenced. The agency of the company came to an end some time in March, 1958. The assessment year is the year 1961-62, and the corresponding previous year is the calendar year 1960. During the year the assessee-company had an income of Rs. 7,318 in the outstanding creditors' account and this amount was on account of expenses claimed in earlier years. The assessee-company had maintai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »