Mumbai Court October 1977 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi, Bombay Vs. Eldee Wire Rope ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR485(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this application the commissioner has sought a reference to this court on two question, but rule was issued at the stage of admission as regards the following question only : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim weighted deduction of Rs. 43,852 under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. It was pointed out by the learned advocate for the assessee that the only point of law canvassed before the Tribunal was that the claim of the assessee was not admissible under section 35B since the expenses were incurred in India. This is borne out by a reference to para. 5 of the order of the Tribunal in the income-tax appeal. 3. Mr. Joshi drew our attention to the original order of the Income-tax Officer where the expenses in respect of which weighted deduction is claimed have been fully indicated. It would appear that as far as the claim in respect of export duty is concer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi Vs. National Organic Chemic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR56(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. An application made by the revenue for reference of the following question was rejected by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of rule 19(3) a distinction has to be made between debts owed and debts due and that only debts that had become due for payment as at the end of the accounting period should be excluded while computing the capital for the purpose of section 80J relief ?' 2. The Tribunal has declined to make the reference on the grounds that there is a recognised distinction between 'debts owed' and 'debts due' and accepted the contention of the assessee that only debts that had become due for payment as at the end of the accounting period could be excluded while computing the capital. While accepting the contention of the assessee and rejecting the application of the revenue, the Tribunal; had relied - and in our opinion rightly - on the decision of the Suprem...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spg. and M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR599(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. Originally, at the instance of the revenue, two questions were asked to be referred, arising out of the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessee for the accounting year 1959. These questions were : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit of Rs. 29,364 realised on the sale of machinery during the year of account is liable to tax under s. 10(2A) or under the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (2) Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal for its finding that the machinery in question was not used for the purpose of his business in the year of sale, that is, 1959 ?' 2. The Tribunal declined to refer the second question but referred the first question under s. 66 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. However, by a supplemental statement of case dated 19th July, 1977, the second question also has now been referred to this court. Both the questions will, therefore, have to be answered. These questions aris...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Rukhmini Sansthan, Amravati Vs. Chakkilal Bhagwandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom269; 1978MhLJ241
ORDER1. The only question that arises in this writ petition is as to whetherthe proceedings under Section 46 (1) read with Section 48 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act), should proceed further even after the landlord produces a certificate under Section 129 (b) of the Tenancy Act.2. The controversy arises in the following manner: Survey Nos. 37/2 and 40/2 situated at Naosari are owned by the petitioner trust namely, Vithal Rukhmini Sansthan, Amravati. It appears that respondent No. 1 has been in possession of survey No. 40/2 as a tenant, while respondent No. 2 was previously occupying survey No. 37/2 as a tenant. This latter survey No. 37/2 is said to have been compulsorily acquired by the Government. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal started a sue motu enquiry No. 219/59(13)/65-66 under Section 46 read with Section 48 of the Tenancy Act with a view to decide as to whether the respondents were entitled' to have...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Janardan Ramchandra Nrawankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ811
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the accused of the offence Under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 2 (i) (1) and 2 (i) (h) and Rule 5A. 01.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The respondent-accused No. 1 admittedly runs New Fine Cold Drink Depot at Bombay. In this shop the respondent engages himself in manufacturing for sale carbonated waters. It is stated that on April 12, 1974 some persons who had consumed aerated water manufactured in the shop of the accused had developed symptoms of food poisoning after consumption of the soft drink.3. A complaint having been made with regard to this to the Food and Drug Administration, on the morning of April 13, 1974, Food Inspector Fariduddin Ahmed Parkar (P.W. 2) in company of independent witness by name More (P.W. 3) went to the shop of the respondent in company of Police Sub-Inspector. It seems that on receiving a complaint about symptoms of...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Ramchandra Sapkal Vs. Gulabrao Tukaram Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR429; 1978MhLJ545
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a tenant's petition challenging the decree for eviction passed against him by the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Poona, and confirmed by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Poona.2. The defendant-petitioner was admittedly a tenant of the suit-premises which consists of a shed which was reconstructed in or about 1960. According to the landlord-respondent No. 1 the defendant had taken the premises specifically for carrying on his business of fret-work, but in about 1969 he had started 'plastic business' thereby causing a breach of the terms of tenancy. The plaintiff had also alleged that the defendant had constructed a loft and erected a permanent structure. Possession was also claimed on the ground that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months.3. It is not necessary to refer to the claim for eviction based on the allegation of construction of a permanent structure and default in payment of rent because that part of the claim of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shripati Pandu Kambale Vs. Bahu Ganpati Kambale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR226
Aggarwal, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts, and dealing with them, proceeded,] Mr. S.R. Adik, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the findings of the learned district Judge on the point that the suit is bad for multifariousness and that the present suit was to be considered only with respect to the claim of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 relating to sub-division No, 1 of survey No. 333 and taking the suit as withdrawn in respect of sub-division No. 2 of survey No. 333 claimed by the plaintiff No. 3 with liberty to bring a fresh action, thereby meaning that the plaintiff No. 3 was not barred to bring a fresh action in respect of survey No. 333/2 on the same cause of action, are totally unwarranted. The learned district Judge failed to appreciate that the learned pleader Shri Sarlaskar, appearing for the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 3970 had submitted that defendants Nos. 1 to 18 had united caused obstruction to the plaintiffs in respect of bo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Shah Nanji Nag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR292(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. M/s. Shah Nanji Nagsi, the assessee-firm, derives income from pakki adat as well as trading in grains and pulses for which separate trading account along with quantitative details are maintained. The net income from pakki adat for the year under consideration as shown by the assessee was Rs. 2,88,456. Many adatyas came and dwelt with the assessee and they were provided with meals by running a mess by the assessee. The expenditure of messing came to Rs. 15,110. The assessee also incurred expenditure of Rs. 7,021 over tea and pan out of which the assessee expended Rs. 2,021 for the employees. In other words, Rs. 5,000 were expended by the assessee for tea and pan to customers. The assessee claimed allowance of Rs. 20,110 as deduction under s. 37(i). However, considering that there was insertion of s. 37(2B) with effect from 1970, the ITO treated the expenditure as entertainment expenses. Accordingly, he disallowed Rs. 5,000 on account of tea and pan expenditure to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Pandurang Thakore Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR197; 1978MhLJ425
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Appellant No. 1-original defendant No. 1-was the lessee of the plot belonging to, the Port Trust of Bombay-the respondent original plaintiff, since 1936, while appellant No, 2-defendant No. 2, is an assignee of the lease rights therein. Good many structures are raised by the lessees on this plot and sub-let to several others. On August 23, 1952 the Port Trust terminated the lease and filed Suit No. 2122 of 1953 for possession of the plot in the City Civil Court on October 5, 1953. The dispute, however, was settled out of the Court, and the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default on July 18, 1957. The Port Trust then instituted another Suit No. 1044 of 1963 on March 25, 1963 for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and taxes. This dispute also was settled and decree in terms of a consent memo was passed on March 15, 1966. This consent decree amongst others required the defendants (1) to pay enhanced rent at Rs. 465 per month instead of Rs. 100 per month from...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sevantilal Jasanglal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1013
Apte, J.1. The respondent Sevantilal conducts and manages drugs and cosmetics shop styled as 'C Mangla' situate at Shop No. 14, Jethabhai Building. 18-A, Bomanji Petit Road, Bombay-26; in the same building in Shop No. 19 they store drugs and other articles which are brought to the shop for sale as and when required.2. The licence for running the drugs and cosmetic shop at Shop No. 14 stands in the name of respondent's wife Smt. Sarojben.3. No separate licence was obtained either in the name of the respondent or his wife for storing the drugs and cosmetics in Shop No. 19.4. On November 16, 1973 the Drugs Inspector, Tanaji Shankar Patil (P.W. 1), visited the shop. The respondent was present in the shop. The Inspector inspected the licence in respect of this shop.5. He then went in company of the accused to the godown and it was found that drugs such as Waterburry's Compound, Vitehext, Bayers Tonic, Phosphoric etc. were stored in the said godown but there was no licence obtained under the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »