Mumbai Court November 1974 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.
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR428(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee is a company carrying on business as civil engineering contractors and dealers in mill stores, and in the course of that business it had dealings with a large number of parties. Various amounts become due to those parties in respect of the trading transactions of the assessee-company, and in cases where those amounts were those amounts were not claimed within three years of their becoming, due, the assessee-company transfer them to an account called the 'unclaimed balances account'. Some payments were, however, effected out of that account, as and when claimed by the parties, and the transfer of those amounts to the unclaimed balances account did not, therefore, stand in the way of the assessee making payments therefrom to the extent found necessary. During the financial year ended 31st March, 1956, there was a debit to this unclaimed balances account to the tune of Rs. 65,881-3-9 which represented the ...
Sadhanchandra Das Vs. Gaurishankar Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1974
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR328
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not relevant to this report, proceeded.] The question so far as other properties are concerned is, whether they formed the estate of Durgacharandas when he died on November 11, 1956, so as to entitle the parties to succeed as tenants-in-common under Section 19(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. It is not challenged by Mr. Jhaveri that under the Dayabhaga law during the life time of the father the sons did not have any share in the ancestral property or the property of the father. What is contended by Mr. Jhaveri is that there is some difference between Dayabhaga law and Mitakshara law with regard to the burden of proof when the properties stand in the name of a son, as in the present case, as it is common ground that the tenancies in Bombay and! the property at Navin Senapati Lane, Howrah, stood in the name of the defendant No. 1 during the life time of Durgacharandas. Mr. Jhaveri submitted that the onu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Popatlal Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1974
Reported in: [1977]108ITR4(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us on this reference, one at the instance of the department which is set out in the concluding part of paragraph 11 of the statement of the case, and the other at the instance of the assessee which is set out in paragraph 12 of the statement of the case. A notice of motion was taken out by the revenue for certain additional questions which we have dismissed today by a separate order. We are, therefore, concerned only with the questions referred to us which are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of the case. 2. As far as the question set out in paragraph 12 of the statement of the case is concerned, the learned counsel have stated that in view of our judgment dated 4th December, 1973, in Income-tax Reference No. 44 of 1964 [New Kaiseri-Hind Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1977]107ITR760(Bom) ], the said question must, by consent, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. 3. As far...
South India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR969(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', Bombay, by its order dated 19th February, 1965. 2. As we felt that the question referred by the Tribunal to us as a question of law arising from its order dated 25th April, 1960, did not bring out precisely and accurately the question for our consideration, the same was re-framed by us as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,646 in arriving at the assessee's total income ?' 3. A few facts may be stated : The assessee-company, which is carrying on the business of insurance other than life insurance, claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,045 as loss arising from the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee during the calendar year 1955, being the previous year for the assessment year 1956-57. The contention of the assessee was that the balance due to the head office of the company at Bombay from their Karachi branch un...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Puranmal Manilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR278(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in which the following question has been formulated for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee-firm had made any profit liable to be assessed under section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The facts of the case are very simple. The assessee was a firm consisting of two partners, Puranmal as representing one Hindu undivided family, and Manilal as representing another Hindu undivided family. The firm had acquired certain assets, including machinery, on which depreciation was being allowed in the assessments under section 10(2)(vi) of the Act. The firm was, however, dissolved as from 6th April, 1949. On the 19th April, 1949, two documents were executed between the partners, one a deed of dissolution and the other a deed of release. In both these documents it was provided that Puranmal, who retired from the firm leaving the entire busines...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Skenando Rayon Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR29(Bom)
Vimadalal, J.1. Messrs. Skenando Rayon Corporation of U.S.A. is a foreign company carrying on business in the manufacture of Viscose yarn. On the April 31, 1954, it entered into an agreement with one R. J. Chinai as the promoter of a proposed company for the manufacture of rayon yarn dated February 3, 1947, by the National Rayon Corporation Ltd., when that company was registered in India. By clause 4 of the said agreement it was, inter alia, provided : (a) that in consideration of the payments which were to be made to the foreign company pursuant to the terms of the said agreement, the foreign company would furnish to the Indian company technical skill, advice and knowledge regarding the selection of a plant site and the acquisition of the same, as well as the design, plan, layout and specifications for the machinery, equipments, etc. : (b) that it would employ an American concern to assist and advise the Indian company in the preparation of the plans and specifications; (c) that it wo...
Solhinder Singh Gyanchand Kuckreja Vs. Kadu Babu Laxman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom303; (1975)77BOMLR333; 1975MhLJ655
Deshmukh, J.1. Both these writ petitions are being summarily dismissed. However, as they involve a point of law of some interest, notice before admission was issued to respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 11, the Municipal Council. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, but had not the benefit of any submissions on behalf of the Municipal Council, as it had no appeared.2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner who is a common petitioner in both these petitions, is a resident of Lonavala and had filed nomination papers in Ward Nos. 19 and 21 for the impending Municipal elections. Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 in both the petitions were the other candidates contesting the election respectively in Ward Nos. 19 and 21. When the nomination papers were being scrutiniswed, a common objection was raised to the candidature of the petitioner in respect of both the Wards. The objections was that the petitioner is a joint owner of some house propert...
Padmanabh Narayan Inamdar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1974
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR366
Joshi, J.1. This revision application is preferred against an order made on November 17, 1972 in Criminal Case No. 408/P of 1972 by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay, rejecting the application for permission to withdraw the proceedings under Section 495(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts giving rise to it could be briefly summarised as follows:2. The petitioner before this Court Mr. P.N. Inamdar is the President of Bharat Barrel Employees' Union; respondent No. 2 Mr. L, B. Goenka is the Director of the Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company, whereas respondents Nos. 3 to 185 are the employees of the abovesaid company.3. On September 30, 1971 the management of the said company decided to close down the factory on account of non-availability of raw material and notice of closure was issued, terminating the services of opponents Nos. 3 to 185 with effect from November 1, 1971. On October 30, 1971 the petitioner (the President of the Employees' Union...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Minimax Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC388(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The question referred to us for our opinion is : 'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of rule 4-B(2) of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957, and section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was permissible in law to the appellate authority to accept the declarations in form C, which were admittedly not produced by the respondents at the time of assessment, in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction and subject the impugned sales to a concessional rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?'2. It may be useful to set out at this place the material provisions upon which the arguments in the present case turn. Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), at the material time, ran a...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Gangadhar Sitaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC357(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been submitted to us in this reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that even though the vendors of the respondent has claimed the impugned sales to the respondent as exempt from tax under rule 5(1)(vi) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1952, it was not for the respondent to prove that he had not purchased the said goods by issue of certificates, but the onus was on the department to prove by positive evidence that certificates were issued by the respondent while effecting the impugned purchases ?' 2. The facts which have given rise to this reference are that the respondent-firm is a dealer in bullion and in several transactions had also acted as agents for outside-State principals. The assessing authority contended in respect of the period 18th October, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, that the transactions between the respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »