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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. P. Ambalal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: [1976]384STC333(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. Both these references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, arise out of an order of reassessment made against the respondents, who were registered as dealers under the said Act. The period in respect of which the reassessment in question was made was 19th September, 1956, to 31st March, 1957. 2. It appears that the respondents maintained their books of account according to Samvat year and, according to that calendar, the period of reassessment would include a part of S.Y. 2012 and also of S.Y. 2013, the year corresponding to S.Y. 2012, according to the Gregorian Calendar being 15th November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956, and corresponding to S.Y. 2013 being 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. In respect of the period in question, the respondents had filed their returns and in pursuance thereof had been assessed to tax under section 14(3) of the said Act. Against this order of assessment the respondents filed an appeal. While this appeal was pending,...
Kanshiram Surinder Kumar Vs. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1976
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR61
Vimadalal, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from a judgment of the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks dated July 29, 1969 allowing an application for rectification of the register of trade marks made by the present respondents under Section 56(2) of the Act. That application for rectification was made by the present respondents to the Registrar of Trade Marks, and not directly to this Court, as the case was not one which was governed by the provisions of Section 107 of the Act. The trade mark in question in these proceedings consists of the word 'Amar' in respect of textile piece goods which would fall under Class 24. The said mark was registered by the present petitioners in Part B of the Register under No. 212206B as of November 8, 1962. Registration was actually granted on March 25, 1964, but the same would, by virtue of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, relate bac...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)477; [1976]384STC286(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessees (respondents) are registered as a dealer under the said Act and hold a registration certificate. By an application dated 8th July, 1968, made by the assessees to the applicant, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the assessees set out that they were buying plain cashew-nuts in tins and after frying and applying spices to the cashew-nuts to make them tasty, the assessees packed them in plastic bags and sold them locally. By this application, the assessees requested the Commissioner to determine as to whether the aforesaid activity of frying and spicing amounts to 'manufacture' under section 2(17) of the said Act, and that if the answer to the first question was in the affirmative, then what would be the rate of tax on the sale of fried...
Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey and ors. Vs. M.P. Mondkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: 1988(19)LC180(Bombay)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The firm of Messrs Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey (Petitioner No. 1) consisting of three partners, petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 carries on business of sale and purchase of gold and silver bullion. On January 10, 1969 the petitioners delivered to the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') an intimation under Section 11J of the Act in respect of their shop at Sheikh Memon Street as being the place where the silver and gold bullion which were the goods notified under Section 11-I of the Act are being kept or stored by them. According to them between 14th and 23rd January 1969 they sold and delivered three consignments of silver bullion to a firm carrying on business at Nasik. On January 23, 1969 they effected sale of 22 bars of silver weighing in the aggregate 666.533 kgs. valued at Rs. 3,70,356/- to the said firm at Nasik. On the same day they obtained from the Competent Officer a transport voucher under Section 11K for transport of th...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kamani Engineering Corporation Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)500
Madon, J.1. In this Reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, we have to consider the true nature of two transaction evidenced by two contracts which came up for construction before the Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. The statement of the case show that the Respondents are a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of fabricated materials and that they also undertake works contracts and sometimes also labour contracts which do not involve supply of material. During the assessment period April 1, 1955 to March 31, 1956 the Respondents entered inter alia into two contracts, one with the Tribunals of the Bombay Port Trust and the other with Century Rayon of which the century Spinning and Manufacturing mills Limited are the proprietors. By his assessment order dated October 24, 1963 the Sales Tax Officer bifurcated the transaction of the respondents with the Tribunal of the Bombay Port Trust holding that the major part of it was a contract for t...
Alka Vinayak Pendse and ors. Vs. K.V. Kirpekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom314; (1976)78BOMLR433
ORDER1. The question arising for determination in this Civil Revision Application is regarding the computation of limitation period for the recovery of rent paid to the landlord which is determined as excessive payment on account of the standard rent getting fixed at a lower amount.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners, original plaintiffs, had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 1969 on 28-14969 for fixing of standard rent of the premises occupied by them and owned by the opponent, original defendant. In that application a prayer was made for permission to deduct from future rent amount recovered by the landlord in excess of the standard rent that may be fixed. This application was decided on 13-10-1970 and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month as against the contractual rent of Rs. 245/-per month- However, the Court did not grant any adjustment of the overpay meat observing that the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to which the ap...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kamani Engineering Corporation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: [1976]384STC503(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. In this reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, we have to consider the true nature of two transactions evidenced by two contracts which came up for construction before the Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. The statement of the case shows that the respondents are a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of fabricated materials and that they also undertake works contracts and sometimes also labour contracts which do not involve supply of materials. During the assessment period 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956, the respondents entered, inter alia, into two contracts, one with the Trustees of the Bombay Port Trust and the other with Century Rayon of which the Century Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Limited are the proprietors. By his assessment order dated 24th October, 1963, the Sales Tax Officer bifurcated the transaction of the respondents with the Trustees of the Bombay Port Trust holding that the major part of it was a ...
Jamnadas Devsibhai Bhate and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Nagpur Divisio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Bom129; 1976MhLJ267
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In special Civil Application No. 1766 of 1975 as also in the other petitions which were heard along with this Special Civil Application, so far as the common questions of law are concerned, the state Government is acquiring lands belonging to the petitioners as the same are needed or are likely to be needed for the public purposes namely, providing house sites to landless labourers. It further appears from the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, referred to herein after as the Act, that as the Additional Commissioner , Nagpur was of the opinion that the acquisition of the lands is urgently necessary, he directed under sub-section (4) of Section 17 that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in respect of the said lands. A schedule is attached to each of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act giving details about the landed property. Thereafter is some cases notifications under Section 6 of the Act ar...
Shree Ram Milis Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR27(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Two questions, the first one at the instance of the assessee and the second one at the instance of the department, that have been referred to us for our opinion are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 22,75,000 being the provision for taxation is not liable for inclusion in the capital computation for the purposes of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 11,83,050 being the amount of proposed dividends is liable for inclusion in the capital computation for the purposes of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?' 2. The questions relate to the assessment made under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 for which the corresponding previous year was the calendar year ended on December 31, 1962. The assessee which is a public limited company claimed in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. India United Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR129(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, two questions are referred for our determination and they are as under : '1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that there is no basis for the addition of Rs. 76,92,566 is justified in law. 2. Whether, if the amount of Rs. 76,92,566 is at all considered to be the profit of the assessee-company, a deduction should be allowed to the assessee-company in respect of that amount on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the amount represented a revenue trading loss arising to the assessee-company in the course of its business ?' 2. The assessee-company consist of a group of cotton textile mills containing five units some of which are composite and some of which are not composite. For the year of account 1948, relevant to the assessment year 1949-50, the assessee-company submitted a return of income showing a net profit of Rs. 59,71,594 as per its books of account. Messrs. Agarwal & Co., a partnership firm, was the man...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »