Mumbai Court August 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.
Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
In Re: Khandelwal Udyog Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas503(Bom)
Mridul, J.1. Petition No. 146 of 1975 by Khandelwal Udyog Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company') is for sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation and merger with Acme . (hereinafter called 'the transferee-company'). Petition No. 147 of 1975 is the petition by the transferor-company for sanctioning the scheme by the aforesaid amalgamation and merger. Since a common question arises for determination in these two petitions, they have been, by consent of the parties, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The transferee-company was incorporated on 29th November, 1919. The transferor-company was incorporated on 25th January, 1960. By virtue of and under their respective memoranda and the articles of association both the transferor and the transferee-companies are entitled to carry on the business of manufacturing iron, brass and other metal products. It is not disputed that their manufacturing and their business activities are analogous and can...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. V.R. Chaphekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR49(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our determination in this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, runs as follow : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional remuneration received by the respective assessees in terms of the resolution of S. B. Joshi & Co. Ltd., dated June 20, 1959, was income liable to be assessed as income under the head 'Salary' or income under the head 'Business or profession' ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. During the relevant accounting years for the said assessment years, four assessees, Shri V. R. Chaphekar, M. P. Apte, D. B. Joshi and R. B. Joshi, received certain sums as additional remuneration in consideration of the additional responsibilities that were remuneration in consideration of the additional responsibilities that were required to the undertaken by them from a company called M/s. S. B. Joshi & Co. Ltd.,...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Century Spg. and Mfg. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR209(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The two questions referred to in this reference should be reframed as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 10,71,250 and Rs. 45,88,362 for the assessment year 1965-66, being proposed dividend on preference shares and on equity shares, respectively, could not be treated as provision/liability to be excluded from the capital base for the purpose of statutory deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 11,60,522 and Rs. 53,53,089 for the assessment year 1966-67, being proposed dividend on preference shares and on equity shares, respectively, could not be regarded as provision/liability and hence the said amounts were not deductible from under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. It is agreed by the counsel on behalf of the revenue and the asse...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii Vs. Century Spg. and Mfg. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR6(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The questions that are referred for our determination are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire Dividend Equalisation Reserve amounting to Rs. 83,01,416 should be included in the capital computation without deducting the amount of dividend paid out of such reserve 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,85,500 being the proposed dividend on preference shares could not be treated as a liability to be excluded from the capital base for the purposes of statutory deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, (i) provision for taxation in excess of the liability finally determined, and (ii) provision for gratuity of Rs. 99,294 should be treated as reserve for inclusion in the capital computation f...
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Solapur Vs. the Solapur Agric ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom184; (1977)79BOMLR361; 1978MhLJ9
1. On March 21, 1966, the respondent, Sholapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sholapur filed Regular Civil Suit No. 225 of 1966, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, against the Municipal Corporation of the City of Sholapur, the appellant in the above Second Appeal, for a declaration that the Municipal Corporation of the City of Sholapur, which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipal Corporation', had no right to establish or authorise or allow to be established any cattle market in the suit area for the purchase and sale of cattle enumerated in the two Notifications, referred to in the Suit, and by reason of the assumption of regulation of marketing of cattle by the plaintiff-Market Committee; and for an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from doing anything which would interfere with the Market Committee's exclusive right to conduct and regulate the marketing o cattle and for that reason to restrain the Municipal Corporation from...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Century Spg. and Mfg. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR431(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to us for our determination at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, Bombay : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that (i) the proposed dividend of Rs. 56,59,612, (ii) excess provision for taxation, (iii) provision for contingencies of Rs. 40,00,000 and (iv) provision for gratuity should be treated as reserve for inclusion in the capital computation for the purpose of the super profits tax assessment for 1963-64 assessment year (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rule 3 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, is applicable only to a case where a part of the income of a company is not includible in its total income by virtue of the provisions contained in Chap...
G. S. Dugal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR757(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. The question in this reference whether the assessee firm is entitled to registration and renewal of registration has been very strenuously argued both on behalf of the assessee-firm as well as the revenue. The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, and 1954-55. Under the instrument of partnership dated April 5, 1950, the assessee was purported to be constituted as a firm. The instrument of partnership showed that the partnership was to consist of three partners, namely, Messrs. G. S. Dugal & Co. Ltd., a firm by name, Messrs. Bishan Singh Jaswant Singh and an individual by name, S. Lakhinder Singh. The shares of M/s G. S. Dugal & Co. Ltd. and the firm of Messrs. Bishan Singh Jaswant Singh were respectively 7 annas in a rupee and the share of the third partner, S. Lakhinder Singh, was 2 annas in a rupee. This instrument of partnership was signed on behalf of G. S. Dugal & Co. Ltd. by its managing director, G. S. Dugal, on behalf of the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bhalchamora D. Jokhakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR229(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our determination in this referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, runs as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annuity of Rs. 1,000 per month arising to assessee under annexure 'C' was exempt under section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The question relates to wealth-tax assessment year 1962-63 and 1963-64, the relevant valuation dates being March 31, 1962,and March 31, 1963, respectively. Original assessee, Manu Subedar, since deceased (his executors have been brought on record), was a well-known economist and financial adviser. Under an agreement of lease dated November 1, 1943, made between the original assessee and the Government of India a plot of land situate in Marine Lines locality was obtained on lease by the original assessee for a period of 999 year on an annual rent of Re.1 and for consideration of approximately Rs. 3,60,000. It appears that this...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. H.N. Shindore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR679(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question referred to at the instance of the revenue in this reference is as under : 'Whether the initiation of proceedings under section 34(1A) against the assessee for the assessment years 1943-44 to 1946-47 was legal and valid when the assessments which were already made against the assessee for those years, were not canceled by a competent authority and when the department was taking proceedings against the assessee for the recovery of tax under those very assessments after rejecting the assessee's plea that they were illegal and void ?' 2. For the assessment years 1943-44 to 1946-47, the relevant previous years are the financial years ending March 31, 1943,1944,1945 and 1946, respectively. The assessee, H. N. Shindore, was deriving income from lands, money-lending and country liquor business. He denied having kept or maintained any books of account in respect of his business. He denied having kept or maintained any books of account in respect of his business a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »