Mumbai Court March 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.
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.M. Bhardwaj, Assistant C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: 1987(32)ELT534(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Prakash Cotton Mills Private Limited and its Director against the judgment dated July 16, 1980 delivered by Mr. Justice Aggarwal dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants for quashing show cause notice dated August 30, 1975 and March 17, 1976 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Few facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are as follows : 2. Prakash Cotton Mills have a registered Office in Bombay and are owners of Textile Mills situate at Lower Parel, Bombay. The Textile Mill is duly licensed and employee large number of workers, who work on spindles and handlooms. The Mills have obtained an Excise Licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the Licence specifies the place of manufacture of cotton fabrics, the place being the factory premises. On March 11, 1963. Officers of the Central Excise Department seized certain goods of the mills which were lying in the premises of M/s. Jalan ...
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR205(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference has been made under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, pursuant to an order passed by this court. There are two sets of questions referred to us for determination. The first set of common questions relate to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1955-56 and 1956-57 and they are as under : '1. Whether there was any evidence for holding that the cane rate was lower than the average rate at which the petitioner purchased cane from market 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law or misdirected itself in fixing the cane rate for cane grown by the petitioner on its own farm at a rate lower than the average purchase rate at which such cane was purchased by the petitioner from market without reference to any evidence except the assessments made in the case of other sugar mills (3) Whether the cane rate should have been fixed at the average purchase rate of sugarcane by the petitioner-company ?' 2. The other common question that has been referred rel...
Ram Kumar Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR301(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question is referred to us for our determination : 'Whether the Tribunal erred or misdirected itself in law or failed to act in proper exercise of its discretion in not allowing the applicant to raise the additional grounds regarding the amount of Rs. 7,93,837 ?' The assessee was assessed to tax in the status of a registered firm. In the computation of its business income the assessee claimed loss of Rs. 4,75,488 and various other deductions. The loss was disallowed as fictitious and added back. So also some of the allowance claimed were disallowed and added back. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer disallowing the loss and some of the allowances claimed the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer and upheld the disallowance of the loss and some other disallowances...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR752(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax, Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to us for out decision at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay : 'Whether, on a proper interpretation of section 10(5) and section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the contributions received from the Government or public or local authorities can be deducted in arriving at the actual cost of the machinery for purposes of allowance of development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) ?' 2. The few facts giving rise to this question may be stated : The question relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the corresponding previous year being the year ended on March 31, 1961. The assessee, Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd., is a company which generates and distributes electricity. During the relevant previous year the assessee-company installed machinery of the total value of Rs. 53,44,232. It claimed dev...
Chemaux Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR705(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 26,288 paid by the assessee-company to Shri Khopkar was deductible in determining its profits for the year 1959-60 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company doing business in chemicals and textile auxiliaries. It appears that one Shri A.M. Khopkar, who was previously in the employ of M/s. Amritlal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., joined the service of the assessee-company and in the year of account he was working as the manager of the assessee-company drawing a salary of Rs. 400 per month. In the middle of the year, i.e., June 12, 1958, he addressed a letter to the chairman of the assessee-company requesting him to sanction commission on sales at the rate of 2 1/2%, which, according to him, was what he was requi...
New India Industries Employees' Assn., Bombay Vs. New India Industries ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ528Bom
ORDER1. This is a complaint filed by the New India, Industries Employees' Association, Bombay, against the New India Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) under S. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The grievance in the complaint is that the agreement in the form of despatch of material bonus scheme dated 18-1-1967, as subsequently modified, is not implemented by the company. In the complaint it is stated that the company put up notice dated 6-11-1975 stating that in view of the New Bonus Ordinance dated 25-9-1975 the company discontinues the above - mentioned bonus scheme, as according to the company it is not open to it to pay bonus as per despatch of material bonus scheme (hereinafter referred to as the scheme). The complainant alleges that the scheme is not covered by the said ordinance, hence the company is not justified in discontinuing the said scheme. 2. B...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Menora Hosiery Works Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR714(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This reference involves the usual ticklish question as to whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital nature or revenue nature and the exact question referred to us for our opinion by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-I, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 27,284 or 1/5th of it incurred by the assessee in constructing second floor, was allowable as a deduction in the computation of its business profits ?' 2. The short facts giving rise to this question may be stated. The question relates to the assessment year 1962-63, the corresponding year of account being the year ended 31st March, 1963. The assessee, Messrs. Menora Hosiery Works Pvt. Ltd., which is a private limited company, had obtained for its business purposes on leave and licence basis a certain property formerly known as Vishnu Cine...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Crawford Bayley and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR884(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The question that has been referred for our determination at the instance of the revenue is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C', the payment made to the widow or widows of the deceased partner or partners were to be excluded from the assessments of the assessee in the respective years ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1963-64, the relevant previous years being the financial years preceding the assessment years. From April 1, 1957, the constitution of the firm of Messrs. Crawford Bayley & Co. (the assessee) was governed by a partnership deed dated March 14, 1957 (which in the question is referred to as annexure 'A'). Under this deed of partnership one of the partners of the firm was Mr. V. R. Nath. He died on May 27, 1958. After his death a new deed of partnership was executed on April 16, 1959, and it was to take effect from April 1, 1959. This deed of ...
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR945(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the assessment year 1958-59, the company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 9,500 for legal expenses in connection with transfer of shares and of Rs. 5,000 for legal expenses incurred for resisting the appointment of a Government inspector to report on the affairs of the company. 2. The first item of expenditure was incurred because the shareholder by name Banarsi Prasad Jhunjhunwala holding shares of the case value of Rs. 1 lakhs applied for transfer of a part of his holding to his son and daughter-in-law. The management, for some reason not revealed at any stage of the proceedings (including the hearing before the Tribunal) resisted the transfer of the shares. This gave rise to some litigation, including an appeal before the Central Government under the Companies Act. The matter was not settled in the accounting year but ultimately the company had to register the transfer of shares. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. New Life Construction ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR361(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question in this reference relates to registration of a firm and it is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 ?' 2. A firm by the name and style of New Life Construction Co. was constituted with effect from April 1, 1957, consisting of, as appearing from the preamble of the deed, dated April 5, 1957, four partners, namely, (1) Parsram Dhamanlal Mariwalla, (2) Madhavji Khimji, (3) Laxman Velji, and (4) Messrs. Jay Vishin & Co., partners 1 and 4 having one-third share each and the other partners having one-sixth share each therein. The partners were to share the losses in the same proportion. Clause 4 of the deed related to capital contribution. Clause 13 thereof provided for control over financial matters and clause 16 provided for contingency arising on the death of any partner. In the agreed state...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »