Mumbai Court June 1973 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 Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR85(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. A rule nisi has been served upon the assessee calling upon it to show cause why the three questions referred to therein should not be made a subject-matter of the reference and why the rule nisi should not be made absolute. Mr. Palkhivala, who appears on behalf of the assessee, with a view to oppose the making of the rule nisi absolute, has asked me to proceed on the assumption without accepting the said position that for the purpose of this rule nisi there is a business connection between a German concern by name M/s. Linchema G. m. b. H. and the assessee-company and further it should be assumed that the assessee should be treated as the agent of the German concern. 2. In that view of the matter the only question that survives for consideration is question No. 1 in respect of which the rule nisi is issued. Under this question the revenue wants to assess the assessee on the income which arose to Messrs. Lichema. Now, such income can only be assessed in the return of ...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1973
Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR675
Nain, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. It manufactures and deals in motor trucks. It also gives motor trucks on hire-purchase system. Petitioner No. 2 is a director of petitioner No. 1, and petitioner No. 3 is its shareholder. Both the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are citizens of India, Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Central Excise Authorities in Bombay. (Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'). Respondent No. 5 is the hirer of motor truck No. MRS 9548 from petitioner No. 1 under a hire-purchase agreement dated September 7, 1968 which is exh. 'A'. The amount originally payable under the hire-purchase agreement was Rs. 55,236.95 P. which was payable by certain instalments mentioned in the agreement. These were to be payments by way of hire. Until full payment was made in respect of the said truck, the truck was to remain the absolute property of petitioner No. 1. The due performance o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›