Mumbai Court October 1977 Judgments
Vithaldas Jayawant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR866(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) was legal ?' 2. Messrs. Vithaldas Jayawant, the assessee, is a partnership firm having its head office at Nagpur and branches at Mangalore, Cochin, etc. It keeps books of account according to the Diwali year and for the relevant assessment year 1963-64, the previous year ended on October 28, 1962. The return of the assessee ought to have been filed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, latest by June 30, 1963. It is the case of the assessee that it filed on or about June 15, 1963, an application in Form No. 6 requesting for an extension of time for filing the return which was due on June 30, 1963. Ultimately, the assessee filed the return on March 30, 1964, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,08,696. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!Panditrao Daji Kulkarni Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR544; 1978MhLJ703
Naik, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question about the stage at which the President of a Municipal Council under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act of 1965', for short) could nominate members of the Subjects Committees under Section 63(3B)(i) of the Act. It also incidentally raises the question as to whether the Collector could interfere with that order-under the provisions of Section 308 of the Act and whether the Government could revise any such order under Section 318 of the Act.2. The question arises on the following facts: For the town of Ichalkaranji which has a population exceeding 75,000, 'A' Class Municipal Council has been constituted under the Act. The first elections to this council were held in November 1974. At that time the total number of members of this council consisted of forty-two elected and four co-opted councillors, in addition to the President. The elections to the Subjects Committees of this council were held in January 1975, and Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.A. Trivedi Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1977
Reported in: [1979]117ITR983(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000 incurred by the assessee-firm on earth cutting in the Dukka Hurki Mine is allowable as revenue deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The facts on which this question has arisen in the course of assessment for the assessment year 1958-59 are not in dispute. The assessee is a firm whose business consists of mining manganese and coal. The manganese mines are located in Balaghat district in Madhya Pradesh. One such mine is known as Dukka Hurki Mine (hereinafter it is referred to as 'the mine'). In respect of this mine in the year of accounting ending December 31, 1957, the assessee showed the extract of 920 tons and the expenditure incurred therefore was disclosed at Rs. 1,60,611. The break-up of this amount is as fol...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Marathwada and Vidarbha Vs. Natwar Transpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR284(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in ascertaining the commercial profits of the company for purposes of s. 23A, the book profit was liable to be enhanced by the difference between the depreciation for the material years actually charged to the profit and loss account, and the depreciation allowed in the assessment ?' 2. Natwar Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, is a limited company doing motor transport business. The question referred to relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, for which the relevant accounting period ended on June 30, 1958, and June, 30, 1959. It is common ground that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of s. 23A. For the two assessment years, the total income computed was Rs. 1,84,887 for the first year and Rs. 90,514 for the second year. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›