Mumbai Court November 1976 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.
Aziende Colori Nazionali Affini, Italy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR145(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The assessee-company, which will be hereinafter referred to as A. C. N. A., is a corporation registered under the laws of Italy. The reference arises out of the assessments made on the assessee for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, the respective accounting years being the years ending on 31st March, 1959, 31st March, 1960, and 31st March, 1961, respectively. The assessee was treated as a company for the purposes of such assessments. During the previous years it was also assessed as a non-resident. 2. We are concerned in this reference with certain payments received by the assessee-company under an agreement dated 30th June, 1958, entered into between the assessee and an Indian company called Amar Dye Chem Ltd. Under the said agreement the assessee was, inter alia, entitled to receive a fee called 'technical service fee'; this was under clause (3) of the agreement. The fee provided under the agreement, to which we shall make a detailed reference subsequently, was Rs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. J.B. Advani Oerlikon Ele ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR791(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The following question has been referred for our determination by the Tribunal : 'Whether, the sums of Rs. 2,20,663, and Rs. 3,19,834 paid to the Swiss company under annexure 'A' is an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xii), 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : The reference arises out of the assessments of the assessee-company for the two years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the relevant previous years are the years ending on 31st March, 1960, and 31st March, 1961 respectively. M/s. J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd. was a company carrying on business in Bombay. On 13th February, 1951, it entered into an agreement with a company in Panama called M/s. Holding Intercito Ltd. By the said agreement the two parties agreed to form a new company for the manufacture in India of electrodes with a capital of Rs. 10 lakhs, of which Rs. 9 lakhs we...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Late F. Summersgill
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR617(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made by the Tribunal to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 41,471 received by the executors was assessable in their hands as their income for the assessment year 1958-59 ?' 2. A few facts giving rise to the question may be stated : The assessees are the executors of the estate of late Shri Frank Summersgill who died in Bombay on 20th March, 1955, leaving his last will made on 23rd February, 1955. The two assessees - Shri Reginald Mathalone and Shri K. B. Parekh - were appointed by the deceased as his executors for the administration of his estate after his death. The question under reference refers to the assessment year 1958-59. It may be stated that up to the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question the administration of the estate was not complete...
Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Tata Iro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: [1978]115ITR538(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this excess profits tax reference made by the Tribunal to this court under s. 21 of the EPT Act, 1940, three questions have been referred for our determination, viz. : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the excess profits for the chargeable accounting periods ending 31-3-1942, 31-3-1943, 31-3-1944, 31-3-1945 and 31-3-1946, the depreciation of Rs. 5,68,898, Rs. 4,85,102, Rs. 4,12,994, Rs. 3,59,759 and Rs. 2,99,298, respectively, referable to capitalised interest included in the cost of machinery, was deductible (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, in computing the capital employed in the assessee's business for the chargeable accounting periods ending 31-3-1945 and 31-3-1946 voluntary deposit of Rs. 50,36,928 was deductible and (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the allowance of Rs. 95,21,000 granted by the Central Board of Revenue under s. 26(3)(a) of the EPT Act in de...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bayer Agrochem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: [1982]134ITR240(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference made to the High Court under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The question of law referred to the High Court for its opinion thereon is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the relief contemplated under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated: We are concerned in this reference for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the corresponding accounting period being the years ending March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961, respectively. The assessee-company was incorporated on September 9, 1958, as a private limited company for the purposes of various objects mentioned in the memorandum of association and in particular in clause III thereof. The company duly applied to the proper authorities for the grant of an industrial license, which license was subsequently granted by the Govt. of India. The company proposed to carry on its business in collaboration wi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Bayer Agrochem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)402
Desai, J. - This is a reference made to the High Court under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922. The question of law referred to High Court for its opinion thereon is as follows :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company was entitled to the relief contemplated under S. 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'A few facts may be stated :2. We are concerned in this reference for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the corresponding accounting period being the years ending 31-3-1960 and 31.3.1961 respectively. The assessee company was incorporated on 9th September 1958 as a private limited company for the purposes of various objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association and in particular in clause III thereof. The company duly applied to the proper authorities for the grant of an industrial licence, which licence was subsequently granted by the Government of India. The company proposed to carry on its business in collaboration with a well-...
Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR602(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made by the Tribunal to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the relevant trust deeds of the Kunti Family Trust, Aparna Family Trust and Gayatri Family Trust, the income accruing to the trusts amounting to Rs. 30,808 was includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1962-63, the relevant previous year being 31st March, 1962. Assessee, Yogindraprasad N. Mafatlal, who is an individual, created three separate trusts by three deeds executed by him on the same day, namely, 26th March, 1959, in favour of his three minor daughters, (1) Kunti, (2) Aparna and (3) Gayatri. In the relevant accounting year all these three daughters were minors and unmarried. Under the first trust, which may conveniently be called '...
Duke and Sons Ltd. a Company and anr. Vs. G.T. Kundnani Superintendent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: 1979CENCUS41D
ORDERD.H. Reg, J.1. N.B. Text of Judgment is not being printed in this case for want ofspace--Ed......
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: [1979]116ITR297(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Rule has been issued in respect of two questions raised by the department in this application, viz. : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the legal expenses of Rs. 75,000 incurred in connection with petition No. 114 of 1967 was allowable as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was at all correct in in its earlier conclusion that the said expenditure could be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee ?' 2. Really speaking, the two concerned questions relate to the two aspects of the same matter as to whether the legal expenses of Rs. 75,000 incurred by the assessee in connection with Petition No. 114 of 1967 could be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the company. Petition NO. 114 of 1967 had been filed by the Ce...
Harishchandra Narsingrao Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR166
Hazarnavis, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an appellate decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded.2. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that the petitioner held 177 acres and 20 gunthas of land and had, therefore, held that he was a surplus holder to the extent of 122 acres and 20 gunthas. Out of the land that was held by the petitioner, survey No. 285 admeasuring 153 acres and 8 gunthas is a tank. There is nothing on record to show the nature of the tank. It appears that the villagers have been using the water from the tank and there is also evidence to show that proceedings for acquisition of the tank for public purpose have been going on from 1958. Notification under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, has been issued and there is dispu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »