Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]98ITR426(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The following four question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal have been referred to us for our decision : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 19,11,658 being the company's initial contribution to the gratuity fund, could be deducted in determining in determining the company's profits under section 10 of the Income-tax Act either for the assessment year 1952-53 or 1953-54 (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,65,701 being the company's yearly contribution to the gratuity fund relating to the year 1951 could be deducted in determining the company's profit under section 10 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1952-53 or for 1953-54 (3) Whether the Tribunal refusal to direct the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the circular of the Central Board of Revenue, dated 3rd November, 1951, in regard to contribution to the gratuity fund in making assessments for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1976]102ITR425(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee three questions of law are referred to us for determination under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. They are : '(1) Whether there was any evidence or material to support the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 1,38,000 represented the appellant's income from undisclosed sources (2) Whether the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 1,38,000 was the appellant's income from undisclosed sources was perverse in the sense that no reasonable man could come to it on the materials on record (3) Whether the said conclusion was based on conjectures, surmise or suspicion and on a failure to consider the relevant evidence on record ?' 2. As this reference is capable of being disposed of on a short point, namely, whether the sum of Rs. 1,38,000 as income from undisclosed sources can be assessed for the assessment year 1947-48 or not, it is unnecessary for us to go into the facts in detail. For the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]101ITR370(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Rule has been issued in respect of two questions one of which relates to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 35,029 appearing as reserve for doubtful debts in the capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and the other relates to the point whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of dividend was Rs. 1,83,304 for the purpose of determining the chargeable profits of the assessee-company for the purpose of super profits tax assessment for the year 1963-64. 2. It appears that for calculating the capital base for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the Income-tax Officer excluded the balance sum of Rs. 35,029 standing as reserve for doubtful debts on the ground that since this amount was earmarked for specific liability it could not be regarded as a reserve amount. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner who heard the appeal allowed the appeal on this point and reversed the Income-tax Officer's orders. The department went in second appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom201; (1974)76BOMLR706; 1974MhLJ881
Deshmukh, J.1. This writ petition arising under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The point involved is in a way simple but the reference became necessary because of two conflicting judgments of Single Judges both the which were reported. Hence the learned Single Judge thought that the point should be disposed of by a larger Bench.2. The petitioner before us is a tenant of the property and present respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord, who was the plaintiff in the suit. There is no dispute that the petitioner tenant is a monthly tenant and pays an aggregate rent as there is no dispute about it in this litigation. Admittedly, it appears that the landlord served a notice on the tenant on April 15, 1965 , as per Ex. 24, and claimed arrears of Rs. 123.44 at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!