Mumbai Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. M. Bhuta and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR183(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. This is reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, Bombay, as directed by this court by its order dated of March 10, 1964, the Tribunal has submitted the statement of case and referred to this court the following question of law for decision as having arisen out of the Tribunal's order dated January 23, 1962 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty was leviable in law ?' 2. The facts giving rise t this question may be stated : The question relates to the assessment year 1949-50, the corresponding previous year beings S. Y. 2004, corresponding to November 13, 1947, to November 1, 1948. The assessee, M/s. M. Bhuta & Co., is registered partnership firm consisting of four partners, all members of the Bhuta family. In the course of examination of the accounts for the accounting year, viz, S. Y. 2004, relevant to the assessment year 1949-50, the Incom...
Kamla Gobindram Buxani Vs. Bardriprasad Pandey and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom187; (1974)76BOMLR764
ORDER1. The petitioner is a member of the Co-operative Housing Society Known as 'Usha Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'. A flat No. 30-B in its building on the fourth floor is allotted to the petitioner as such member. Respondent No. 1 came to occupy the said flat apparently, at any rate under a leave and licence agreement dated 16th April, 1963. This licence was revoked in 1967 . The respondents'; occupation of the flat was not approved by the Society on various grounds and it was insisting on his dispossession by threatening action. The Society and the petitioner ultimately agreed to make a common cause to evict him for reason of their own and, therefore raised a dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 91 to 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the C. S. Act'), claming possession of the flat from respondent No. 1. Occupation of the premises in breach of the Bye-law...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. D.R. Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR14(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This reference relates to a claim for exemption or deduction of the amount received by a Government servant for compensatory (city) allowance. The assessee was the Income-tax Officer posted at Bombay during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66. He received compensatory (city) allowance of Rs. 741 for that year. He claimed exemption of this amount under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or, alternatively, as a deduction under section 16(v) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that in earlier years similar claims were rejected and such orders of the Income-tax Officer were confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On an appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the same relying upon the orders in the earlier years. On a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. It took the view...
R.K. Dhingra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR643(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference relates to a question of registration of a firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Prior to January 1, 1956, one R. K. Dhingra was carrying on business in the name of M/s. R. K. Dhingra & Co. as its sole proprietor. On June 30, 1956, a partnership deed was executed under which R. K. Dhingra took in his two sons, Narendrakumar and Ashok Kumar, a as partners. Clause 2 of the deed of partnership provided that the business of the partnership shall be deemed to have commenced from January 1, 1956. For the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 applications were made for registration of this firm under section 26A of the Act. The Income-tax Officer upon consideration that the various clauses of the partnership deed came to the conclusion that the partnership was not a genuine one and that the business was the proprietary concern of R. K. Dhingra. This finding was confirmed in appeal by the Appel...
Fakirchand Chenabhai Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR703(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees, the following question has been referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the refusal to register to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1961-62 in accordance with law ?' 2. Short facts giving rise to this question may be stated : The assessment year relating to which this question has been posed is 1961-62, the relevant accounting year for which was S. Y. 2016 (i.e., November 1, 1959, to October 20, 1960). At Sangli a partnership firm named and styled 'M/s. Gandhi Fakirchand Chenabhai' carried on business from October, 1958, onwards. The instrument of partnership dated 17th January, 1959, governing the relations between the partners showed that the partnership consisted of five partners, viz., F. C. Gandhi, Babubhai, Shevantilal, Rameshchandra and Sureshchandra with respective shares of 12 nP., ...
Walchand and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR598(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This is undoubtedly a harsh case but that does not permit us to lay down incorrect law. The reference relates to the assessment year 1957-58 for which the corresponding previous year is the year ending March 31, 1957. The assessee is a private limited company whose main business is to manage other companies. It held shares in various managed companies as also in other companies. It is shareholder in another company by name Share Investment Trust Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust company'). It held 54 shares out of 200 shares of the trust company. The main object of the trust company was to hold shares in other companies. It was also authorised to advance or loan moneys on security of shares, stocks, etc., and also to receive moneys on deposit, interest, or otherwise, and to lend moneys to other persons with or without security and on such terms as it was expedient and in particular to customers and all other persons having dealings with it. In the ye...
Kantilal Chandulal Dharia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR487(Bom)
Tuizapurkar, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee in which the following question has been referred to us for our determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in making an addition of Rs. 11,174 on account of under-valuation of the closing stock for the assessment year 1959-60?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding year being S.Y, 2014. The assessee is an individual doing business in hardware. He started the business in S.Y. 2011, and he was assessed for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and; 1958-59 in respect of the income from his said business. The assessment for the year 1959-60 was completed on 29th of July, 1961, on a sum of Rs. 26,554. It appears that in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1960-61, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had valued his sto...
Rameshwar Bhuralal Sharma Vs. Vithal Sukhdeo Rathod and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Bom160; 1975MhLJ107
ORDER1. Petitioner Rameshwar purchased an area of 2 acres 36 gunthas out of survey number 162/3 situated at village Nandura vide sale-deed dated 9-12-1954 from Ramkrishna Dattatraya, who, along with (1) Vasant (2) Ramkrishna (3) Mangabai (4) jagannath and (5) Shrikrishna formed a joint Hindu family. Thus the land in dispute was their coparcenery property and on the date of transfer in favour of the petitioner it constituted a property belonging to undivided Hindu family and what was sold by Ramkrishna was his undivided share therein. Eventually, therefore, Ramkrishna filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the coparcenery property. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 44-A of 1955 and in this suit a preliminary decree in favour of Ramkrishna was passed on 9-7-1957 . To the said suit Vithal and Laxman were parties. The respondents nos. 2 to 4 are the heirs of deceased Laxman. As per this preliminary decree the property in question was allotted to the...
Sayed Abas Razavi Vs. Smt. Kaneeze Sakina and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ47; 1975MhLJ378
ORDERShimpi, J.1. The petitioner-husband was the respondent in a criminal case filed by opponent No. 1 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgon, Bombay, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining en enhancement of maintenance of Rs. 100 per month already granted in Criminal Revision Application No. 297 of 1967 in which the petitioner had raised an objection that such a petition was not main- tainable, and the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, MazSaon. Bombay, was pleased to negative that contention. Aggrieved by that order, the present petition has been filed.The facts in brief are as under:2. Smt. Kaneeze Sakina had filed a Maintenance Application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 2nd of March, 1966 against the present petitioner who was her husband in that case, alleging that she was married with the present petitioner on 15th of September, 1962, and during the valid marriage wedlock she conceived and delivered...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›