Mumbai Court July 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.
Bhanji Lalji Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)256
Tulzapurkar, J.1. Four questions have been referred to this Court by this reference under S. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessees, who are M/s. Dhanji Lalji, Kolhapur and Shri Dhanji Lalji individual. The two questions concerning the assessment of the firm M/s. Dhanji Lalji are as follows : (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the several restrictions contained in the instrument of partnership dated 12th November 1958 rendered the partnership void in law so as not to entitle the Applicant firm to registration under S. 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and upon the true construction of the partnership deed dated 12th November 1958 there was any evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal that : (i) the status of the partners was no more or higher than that of the dignified employees; (ii) it could not be taken that the agency of the partners, inter se as partners of th...
Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom274; (1977)79BOMLR105
Desai, J.1. In this Special Civil Application the petitioner has impugned the order dated 31st December 1970 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, determining the status of the petitioner under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge a few facts may be stated:2. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 5th November 1966 threatening that he will be deported out of the territory of India. Thereupon he filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No. 98 of 1967. seeking a declaration that he was a citizen of India; he also sought a permanent injunction against the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India restraining them from taking any action against him in the nature of deportation as threatened. In the said suit the following four issues were framed by the trial Court:'1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?2. Whether the plaintiff is a citizen o...
Gleitlager (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR634; [1977]47CompCas79(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. This judge's summons had been taken out by the official liquidator of Alcock Ashdown and Company Ltd. (in liquidation), for a direction that Killick Nixon Ltd., respondent to the judge's summons, be ordered and decreed to pay to the official liquidator a sum of Rs. 28,295.41 with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date hereof till payment. The claim of the official liquidator against Killick Nixon Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the respondent') is in respect of book debts payable by the respondent to said Alcock Ashdown & Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). 2. On 24th April, 1971, Gleitlager (India) Private Ltd. presented a winding-up petition to this court, inter alia, for an order that the company be wound up by the under its directions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. On the said petition an order for winding up was made by Nain, J. on 10th January, 1972. By the said order the official liquidator was appointed ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.V. Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)447
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This reference relates to the determination of the particular section under which an amount received by the assessee on termination of his services is assessable. By an indenture of agreement dated October 29, 1949 the assessee was appointed as manager of M/s. Noble Steel Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). As such manager he was to manage the whole affairs of the company for a period of 15 years with effect from November 1, 1949. Under clause 4 of the agreement he was entitled to monthly salary of Rs. 500/- and in addition thereto the company was to provide him with a motor car and bear all the maintenance and running expenses of the said car. Under clause 6 of the said agreement during the continuance of the agreement the company shall not terminate the services of said Joshi (assessee) as manager except for his inefficiency or incapacity or unfaithfulness or said Joshi accepts any other service. However, if this agreement is terminated by the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Bhagwandas S. Malvi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR426(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question that is referred 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 provisions of the trust deed dated March 31, 1932, and the two release deeds dated December 31, 1956, the trustees were liable to be assessed at the maximum rate under the 1st proviso to section 41(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessees are the trustees of a trust created by one Tribhuvandas by a trust deed dated March 31, 1932, and the question referred to arises with reference to the assessment year 1959-50, the relevant accounting year being Samvat year 2014. The trust deed provided that the trustees were to collect the income and after appropriating specified amounts for expenses were to pay the balance to the settlor during his lifetime and after his death to pay the balance to his wife, Jamnabai, and son, Shantilal. Clause 4(c) of the trust deed contained provisions as regards disposal ...
indumati N. Hirve Vs. Arun Laxman Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom311; 1976MhLJ869
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Full Court of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The respondent brought a suit against the applicant to recover money in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. In that suit, the applicant appeared and filed certain defences. The suit was ultimately fixed for hearing on 7th September 1970. On that date, when the suit was called out, the respondent was absent and, therefore, the suit was dismissed for default. The respondent subsequently filed an application for setting aside the dismissal of the suit for his default. Rule was issued to the applicant and after hearing the parties, the trial Court discharged the notice, thus refusing to set aside the dismissal of the suit for default of the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed an application under Section 38 of the Act to the Full Court of the Court of Small Causes ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Indian Card Clothing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR103(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our opinion in this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III Bombay, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the industrial undertaking of the assessee-company satisfied the requirement of section 15C(2)(i), namely, that it was not formed by the transfer, to a new business, of building, machinery or plant, previously used in any other business ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the corresponding previous year being the year ended March 31, 1961. Thee assessee private limited company. It commenced manufacturing operations on October 2, 1958. In the year in which it commenced manufacturing finish products its total block was worth Rs. 28,33,733, out of which buildings and lands accounted for Rs. 1,46,530. The plant and machinery which were without any dispute not used in any oth...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Amritlal Da ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)410
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, for our opinion run thus :- 'Whether the intention of abandonment of his separate rights in his property which is found to be the separate property of Amritlal Dayabhai, can be inferred from the mere fact of omission by Amritlal Dayabhai to keep it separate from February, 1952 to 1957 ?' 2. The question relates to assessment year 1958-59 to 1961-62, corresponding to the previous years are S.Y. 2013 to 2016. The assessee is a H.U.F. comprising of Amritlal Dayabhai and his minor son. Amritlal Dayabhai was originally a member of the H.U.F. named Moolchand Tribhuvandas. There was a partition in 1940 between the members of bigger H.U.F. at which Amritlal Dayabhai received the sum of Rs. 20,824/-. Amritlal Dayabhai contributed that amount (Rs. 20,824/-) as his capital and became a partner in S.Y. 1998 in the partnership firm of M/s. Amritlal H...
R.B. Shah Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Bom)493
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our opinion under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 at the instance of the assessee runs as follows :- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire income from property held under trust dated 3rd April, 1946, could be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(1)(c) read with its first proviso ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. The question relates to the assessment year 1953-54 the corresponding previous year being the year ended 31st March 1953. The assessee R. B. Shah is an individual whose main 1946 the assessee settled certain properties worth Rs. 2 lakhs on certain trusts. The net income of the properties held under trust, after meeting the incidental expenses, was first to be paid fully to the assessee til his brother Virendra attained majority. After Virendra attained majority, 50% of the net income from the trust ...
N. Sirur and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR432(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred to us for our determination by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payments made to Lady Chandavarkar by way of pension, etc., under clause 14 of the agreement were allowable as deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for 1959-60 to 1961-62 and section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for 1962-63 or on ordinary principles or commercial accounting ?' 2. This reference relates to four assessment years which are referred to in the question. For the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 the assessments were reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the appeals which came before the Tribunal were after the reopened assessments were dealt with on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the Commissioner of Income-tax had passed orders under section 33B of the In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »