Mumbai Court March 1973 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]93ITR548(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. By this reference at the instance of the revenue the following question is referred for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption of tax under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960-61 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company whose shares are entirely held by the Government. It was incorporated on March 30, 1954, and on June 1, 1954, it took over the project for manufacture of penicillin and other antibiotic products, which was initially started by the Government of India. The company commenced actual operations for manufacturing crude penicillin as from December 12, 1954. In the profit and loss account for the year ending March 31, 1955, it showed a closing stock of crude penicillin worth Rs. 16,727. The first samples of crude penicillin which were manufactured by the assessee-company on December 14, 1954, were required to be sent to U.S.A. and U.K. for ob...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai M. Sanghvi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR213(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this reference made to us by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees the following four questions have been referred for out determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the first proviso to section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, property became applicable If the answer to the question No. 1 is in the affirmative - (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'fair market value' of the shares was properly fixed taking into consideration the balance-sheet of the company as at October 31, 1959, or it was to be fixed on the basis of the balance-sheet of the company as at October 31, 1958 (3) In any event, in fixing the 'fair market value' of the shares on the basis of either balance-sheet of the company, the proposed dividend was liable to be deducted (4) In any event, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital gai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR656(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the revenue. The question referred for our determination relates to the assessment year 1961-62, for which the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1961. 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family deriving income from interest on securities, dividends, property and dealing in shares, both ready and forward. In or about the year 1941, the assessee purchased one share of the Shorrock Spinning and . (hereinafter referred to as 'the Shorrock company') of the face value of Rs. 1,000 for Rs. 3,307. Later on, this share was split up into 10 shares of Rs. 100 each and 30 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each were issued to the assessee from time to time by way of bonus shares by the Shorrock company. As a result of this splitting up and the issue of bonus shares, on December 31, 1959, the assessee owned 90 shares in th...
Tag this Judgment!Shere-e-punjab Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. G.W. Ksh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom269; (1974)76BOMLR22; ILR1974Bom580; 1974MhLJ247
1. The only question which arises in the above First Appeal directed against the decision of the City Civil Court, Bombay, dated December 20, 1972 is whether the learned Judge was right in dismissing the appellants suit on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in view of the entertain the said suit in view of the provisions of section 163 (3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.2. The suit was filed by the appellants who are a Co-operative society and its Managing Committee members challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated July 31, 1972 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay - respondent No. 1, The order runs as follows:-'As show cause notice under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960 was issued to the Managing Committee of the Sher-E-Punjab Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay, under this Office No. BOM/HSG/4529 of 1972 dated 29th May, 1972 calling upon it...
Tag this Judgment!Deviprasad Kejriwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR180(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for our opinion runs as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer, dated 31st March, 1962, levying a penalty of Rs. 2,000 under section 18A (9) (a) read with section 28 for the assessment year 1948-49 was valid in law ?' 2. The question arises in these circumstances : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment year in question is 1948-49. A notice under section 18A (1) was served on the assessee on 9th June, 1947, calling upon the assessee to pay advance tax of Rs. 18,967 for the assessment year 1948-49. The demand was based on the latest completed assessment which was for the year 1946-47. Initially, the assessee submitted an estimate of income on September 20, 1947, according to which no tax was payable because there was a loss. On December 18, 1948, the assessee submitted a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City Ii Vs. Ramprasad Mehra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR468(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue.2. One Balmukchand has five sons. Two of them of them are Ramgopal and Ramprasad. The five sons of Balmukchand and a son of one of the sons carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Kishanchand Bros. This firm is registered under section 26A of the Act Ramgopal a minor son, an unmarried minor daughter and a wife and they form a joint Hindu undivided family. So also Ramprasad has a minor son an unmarried daughter and a wife and they form, a joint Hindu undivided family. Both Ramgopal and Ramprasad are possessed of individual and separate properties. By two separate declarations made on March 26, 1959 Ramgopal and Ramprasad declared that 500 fully paid up shares of a limited company benumb Messrs. Ramgopal Private Ltd. are thrown into the common hotchpot of the joint Hindu undivided family and from the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Raghunath Dixit Vs. B.S. Kothare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR240
Vaidya, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord. Respondent No. 1 is his tenant. The subject matter in dispute between them is a block of four rooms in 'Parvati Sadan', 14th Road, Khar, Bombay-52. The petitioner filed a suit to recover possession under Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The said decree was set aside by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on the ground that the petitioner required the suit premises bona fide, while greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if he is evicted from the suit premises wherein he was living with his sister's son, his wife and children along with his own family. The appellate Bench also held that the petitioner failed to prove the ground under Section 13(1)(1).2. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner in the above Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While confirming all the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Wadia and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR79(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the question that has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, runs as follows : 'Whether the applicant's income from contracts with the Government has been properly estimated at Rs. 24,604 (rupees twenty-four thousand six hundred and four) as against a loss of Rs. 94,206 (rupees ninety-four thousand two hundred and six) claimed by the applicant ?' 2. The question arises in these circumstances : The assessee, Messrs. D. P. Wadia & Sons, is a registered-firm consisting of 3 partners carrying on business as a contractor. The relevant assessment year in respect of which the question arises is 1956-57, for which the accounting year is the financial year ended March 31, 1956. During the accounting year the assesee carried out certain works directly and certain other works through three sub-contractors and in this reference we are concerned with 16 items of work which were carried ou...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR1(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This is a reference to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee. The question referred for our determination relates to assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 for which the corresponding previous years ended on March 31 of each year respectively. The assessee, Dilip Kumar Roy, was a disciple of the late Shri Aurobindo. He utilised his talents given to him by the Divine for doing service for the Divine cause. His two main activities were singing bhajans and writing books. Some of his bhajans were recorded and the earned royalty from the same. He also earned royalty from the books. Both these receipts were charged to tax under the head 'other sources'. He travelled widely not only in India but round the word and sometimes gave lectures on his tour. He attracted several persons towards him, who called him their guru. 2. The assessee had a joint accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Madhao Pandurang and anr. Vs. Yeshwant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Bom12; ILR1974Bom752; 1973MhLJ771
1. This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the judgment of the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1963 dated 19-2-1964, allowing the appeal filed by the original defendant and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit house on the basis of title and also for recovery of Rs. 540/- on account of mesne profits for use and occupation of the said house by the defendant. It was contended by the plaintiff that the house bearing number 1326/0-3 situated in Circle No. 21, Balaji Mandir Road, Itwari, Nagpur, originally belonged to one Narayan Paikaji Gurao of Nagpur. After his death it was inherited by his wife Gaurabai. She sold this house to one Mannulal in the year 1925. Since then Mannulal continued to be in possession of the said house in his own right and got the same constructed at his own costs in the year 1936. As it was thought necessary that Maina, sister of Narayan, shoul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »