Mumbai Court March 1976 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR215(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The following three questions are referred to for our determination by the Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 4,20,000 and Rs. 5,59,756 being the dividend recommended by the board of directors of the assessee for the respective years ended 30th April, 1963, and 30th April, 1964, were to be treated as part of 'other reserves' for the purpose of computation of capital base for the year concerned 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire difference between the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65/1965-66, and actually provided in the accounts of the year concerned should be deducted by the respective 'general reserves' amounts of Rs. 7,50,000 and Rs. 37,00,000 and the balance amount should be taken into account in the capital computation base for the year concerned 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay-ii Vs. Forbes Forbes Campbell and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR38(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay-City-II, Bombay, the following two question have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sums of Rs. 98,730 for the assessment year 1964-65, Rs. 1,10,000 for the assessment year 1965-66 and Rs. 81,000 for the assessment year 1966-67, representing provision for gratuity were includible in computing the capital of the assessee-company under rule 1 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the purpose of surtax (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sums of Rs. 3,20,000 for the assessment year 1964-65, Rs. 3,48,943 for the assessment year 1965-66, and Rs. 4,62,609 for the assessment year 1966-67, representing dividend reserves were includible in the computation of the capital of the assessee-com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Hindustan Sugar Mills L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR659(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The following two questions are referred for our determination : 'Assessment year 1965-6 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend reserve of Rs. 17,25,000 as on July 1, 1963 was includible in the computation of capital of the assessee under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1965-66 Assessment year 1966-6 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the general reserve to the extent of Rs. 18,35,715 as on July 1, 1964, was includible in the computation of capital of the assessee-company under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' 2. So far as this reference is concerned, the facts need not be stated because the principles on the basis of which the questions are to be answered have been fully laid down in more than one decision of our court decided to-day and few days earlier. 3. F...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi Vs. Golden Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR453(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us for our opinion in this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-VI, Bombay, which run thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts in the doubtful debt reserve account were includible in the computation of the capital of the company for the purposes of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts in the dividend reserve account were includible in the computation of the capital of the company for the purposes of the Act 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the admitted facts are that the assessee-company followed a systematic method of transferring an ad hoc amount to the doubtful debt reserve account each year. The amount transferred to the said account was not computed on the basis of the debts which were expected to become bad during the year or even in the future. It did not consider the soundness of every d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR172(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. In this reference the following two questions are referred for out determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 60,000 out of the dividend equalisation reserve of Rs. 8,60,000 was includible in the computation of capital for surtax purposes as a reserve as on November 1, 1964 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,00,000 out of the dividend equalisation reserve of Rs. 8,60,000 was includible in the computation of capital for surtax purposes as a reserve as on November 1, 1964 ?' 2. The above two questions relate to the assessment year 1966-67. The relevant crucial date for computation of capital is the first day of the previous year, i.e. as on November 1, 1964. The position of reserve as disclosed by the balance-sheet for the period ended October 31, 1964, shows thus : Under the heading 'dividend Equalisation Reserve' in the main heading 'Reserves and Surplus' as on November 1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Marrior (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR35(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The question referred to us for determination i : 'Whether, on the facts an in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the dividends paid out of the general reserve had to be ignored for the purpose of capital computation as the entire general reserve was in the nature of a reserve ?' 2. This question is raised in relation to computation of capital for the purpose of surtax for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. So far as the assessment year 1970-71 is concerned, the computation of capital has to be made as on June 1, 1968, for the purpose of this case. The balance-sheet of the company as on May 31, 1968, shows that in the item, general reserve under the heading 'Reserve and surplus' initially at the beginning of that year there was a balance of Rs. 4,81,501. Out of the profits during the year ending May 31, 1968, the sum of Rs. 2,44,000 was directed to be appropriated by transfer recommended that sum of Rs. 2,10,000 should be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR987(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. In this reference the following four questions are referred for our determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,65,000 transferred to general reserve out of the profits of the year ended October 31, 1962, was includible in the computation of capital for surtax purposes as a 'reserve' as on the first day of the 'previous year' November 1, 1962, to October 31, 1963, relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,35,000 transferred to general reserve out of the profits of the year ended October 31, 1963, was includible in the computation of capital for surtax purposes as a 'reserve' as on the first day of the 'previous year' November 1, 1963, to October 31, 1964, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,40,000 out of the dividend equalisation reserve of Rs. 13 lakhs a...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Hareshwar Joshi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom168; 1977MhLJ725
Vaidya, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal is on the basis of the leave granted by S. K. Desai, J., against his judgment dated 22nd November, 1971, in Second Appeal No. 1403 of 1969 and involves a point of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.2. Second Appeal No. 1403 of 1969 was filed against the decision of the District Judge, Thana, dated July 4, 1969, setting aside an order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Devision, Palghar, in Regular Darkhast No. 34 of 1967, dismissing the said darkhast on the ground that though the darkhast was in time under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the darkhast was liable to be dismissed because the subject-matter of the decree was not in possession of the judgment-debtor (respondent No. 7), being lis pen-dens, was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the decree was executable as the darkhast was in time.3. In that second appeal the decision of the learned District Judge was set aside on the ground that the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Otis Elevator Co. (Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR241(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference which has been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, the following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,10,000 was no longer an addition to reserves on October 1, 1962, but reserves itself and therefore, did not come under the mischief of the Explanation to rule 1 of Schedule II of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reserve for employees' indemnities was correctly treated as forming part of the reserves and the capital for purposes of capital computation for surtax purposes (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the excess reserve though forming part of the development rebate in the balance-sheet could not be said to have been allowed as development rebate an...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Karu Jamdade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom355
Chandurkar, J. 1. This petition by the three petitioners, out of whom petitioner No, I is the father and petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 are his sons, is directed against a notification issued by the Commissioner, Poona Division, Poona, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and a Government Resolution No. RPA-1069-R. I. dated 31st October 1969.2. Field survey No. 534/4 area 3 acres 6 gunthas is owned by petitioner No. 2 and field survey No. 579/48 stands in the name of the petitioner No. 3, though both these fields originally stood in the name of petitioner No. 1. A notification came to be issued by the Commissioner, Poona Division, under Section 6 of tbe Land Acquisition Act acquiring a part of the area of survey No. 584/4 and the entire survey No. 579/4B. This notification refers to several other fields which, according to the notification, were needed lor a public purpose which was stated as for 'resettlement of the persons likely to be affected due to Krishna Dhom Project'. The Kri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »