Mumbai Court July 1975 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 Vs. Natwarlal Mohanlal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR748(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax runs as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 1,800 made by the assessee-firm to the widow of the deceased partner was an admissible deduction in computing the income of assessee-firm for the assessment year 1963-64 ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1962-63. The corresponding accounting period being S.Y. 2017 (October 21, 1960, to November 8, 1961) and it arises in these circumstances : The assessee, M/s. Natwarlal Mohanlal & Co., is a registered firm carrying on business of importing and dealing in cloves, dry fruits and kirana. It also deals in shares. The firm originally consisted of four partners, Natwarlal Mohanlal, Kanji Champsey, Chimanlal Vadilal and Harilal Mohanlal, and these partners were carrying on the aforesaid business on terms and conditions contained in a de...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Babulal Narottamdas, Le ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR721(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question is referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 58,125 was properly held by the Tribunal to have accrued to Shri Narottamdas Jethalal only in November, 1955, when the High Court's judgment was pronounced ?' 2. The question had reference to assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54, the relevant accounting years being calendar years 1949 to 1952. On January 4, 1928, a limited company called Chandulal & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was incorporated with the object of promoting another company called Bhalakai Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the mills'). The company was to act as secretaries, treasurers and agents of the mills. The mills was also incorporated on January 4, 1928. The capital of the company was Rs. 640 divided into 128 shares of Rs. 5 each. Out of ...
Rajendra Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR39(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee by this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assessee-firm entitled to the grant of registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the instrument of partnership dated February 17, 1960 ?' 2. The question referred relates to the assessment year 1962-63 for which the corresponding financial year ends on March 31, 1962. Under an instrument of partnership date February 17, 1960, the assessee-firm was constituted as a partnership firm. The indenture of partnership is between Madangopal Damani, Brijgopal Damani and Rajendrakumar Bagri, a minor by his mother and natural guardian, Kamaldevi Devratan Bagri. We will refer to the other terms of this indenture of partnership in greater detail a little later. This partnership was registered under the Partnershi...
Shankarrao Amrutrao Deshmukh Vs. Gendalal Tunnvalai Bhoi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom52
ORDER1. The respondent filed a civil suit No. 2337 of 1970 in the Small Cause Court at Nagpur for the recovery of rent from the petitioner. The property in dispute is a house bearing No. 465 at Circle No. 6/8. Ward No. 12. Garudkhamb Road. Nagpur. The respondent claims to have purchased the property on a December 11. 1968. The petitioner was a tenant in the property even before the respondent purchased the suit house. The claim for recovery of rent was in the sum of Rs. 95 and hence the suit was tried by the registrar of the Small Causes Court. The petitioner has filed his written statement at Ex.12. He disputed the title of the respondent and contended that there was a litigation between the respondent and his vendors in which the sale-deed in favour of the respondent was being challenged. He also claimed that he had paid rent to the previous owners. On account of the pleadings the issues were framed and the learned Registrar of the Small Causes found that the respondent proved that h...
Anant Kishore and ors. Vs. Lilabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom53
ORDER1. One Mohammad Ishaque had filed an insolvency application No. 3 of 1967 against the petitioners as insolvents. That application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on December 22. 1967 On June 10 1968 Raghubirdaval, the present respondent No. 6 made an application against the petitioners for getting them adjudicated as insolvents. That application was registered as Insolvency Application No. 6 of 1968. Even this insolvency application came to be withdrawn on March 25, 1970. Against that order of withdrawal, respondents 1 to 5 filed a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1970 in the District Court at Nagpur. This appeal was heard and disposed by the Third Extra Assistant Judge, Nagpur, On August 31, 1971 In this appeal it was the case of respondents 2 to 5 that they were to the creditors of the petitioners under a deposit receipt. They claimed that they were desirous of joining to the insolvency application No. 6 of 1968. however, the petitioning creditor in that applica...
Baburao Govindrao Shirbhate and ors. Vs. the Collector, Amravati and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom110
Masodkar, J.1. By the present petition the petitioner seek relief inter alia that the co-option of Councillors to the Amravati Municipal Council which met to co-opt six Councillors on December 30, 1974, should be declared illegal upon finding that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 for that co-option is vitiated being arbitrary, mala fide as well lacking in authority in law relevant for that purpose. We may mention that in the prayer there is also a challenge to the legality of the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act 1965 and it is prayed that it should be declared ultra vires. Petitioner No. 1 seeks to approach this Court mainly as the elected councillor of the said Municipal Council while others rest their right upon the fact they were duly nominated candidates for co-option and feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 acting as Presiding Authority in rejecting their nominations on the ground that they lack ...
Pandurang Ganpatrao Welekar and ors. Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom115
Lalit, J. 1. This petition seeks to challenge the two notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The first challenge is to the notification which was issued on May 27, 1966 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The other challenge is to the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on January 14, 1966. 2. The Gram Panchayat Fetri passed a resolution on September 19, 1963 , requesting the Government to acquire land for construction of houses and for extension of the abadi. The resolution shows that it was proposed that khasra Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of village Chincholi be acquired for extension of gaothan. In pursuance of this resolution proceedings were taken up by the Revenu Authorities for the purpose of making an enquiry under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Code . Accordingly the enquiry under Section 226(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code holding that private land be acquired for the extension of the gaothan. He also held that the present...
Acc-vickers Babcock Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR321(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. Three questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 28th October, 1970, have been referred to this court for our determination and out of these three questions the third questions is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1975]98ITR167(SC) and has to be answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. The question is : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 2,64,167, being the amount of interest paid on moneys borrowed, as part of the actual cost for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate ?' In view of the Supreme Court decision mentioned above, we answer that question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. 2. The remaining two question which were hotly debated at the Bar run as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the agre...
Gopal Ramkrishna Chandole Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR353; 1976MhLJ120
Mukhi, J.1. This special civil application, Which has been filed by one Gopal Ramkrishna Chandole, raises an interesting question of law under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner held certain lands and an enquiry under Section 14 of the said Act was, therefore, held in respect of the said holdings of the petitioner.3. It would appear that the petitioner held 188 acres 30 gunthas out of which 1 acre 4 gunthas had already been acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and, therefore, the holding of the petitioner came to 187 acres 26 gunthas.4. On the basis of the fact that there were eight members in the family of the petitioner at the relevant time the ceiling area in respect of the petitioner's land came to be determined at 171 acres so that 16 acres 26 gunthas were declared as surplus land under the provisions of the said Act.5. It is necessary to notice t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii Vs. Zorostrian Building So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR499(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd., the assessee, owned a house property which was in occupation of several tenants. On April 27, 1956, the assessee offered to sell the building for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in favour of the trustees of Zorostrian Building Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'the trustees'). This offer of the assessee was accepted by the trustees by their letter dated May 2, 1956. The assessee was thereafter brought into liquidation on September 11, 1958. On November 21, 1959, the liquidators of the assessee wrote to the trustees saying that the sale was likely to be completed before the end of December, 1959. They also suggested that in case there was any delay they might hand over possession on December 31, 1959, on receipt of full consideration. This suggestion of the assessee was accepted by the trustees under their resolution dated November 26, 1959. On January 4, 1960, the trustees paid the entire amount of consideration to the assessee. A couple of days ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »