Mumbai Court November 1977 Judgments
Digambar Pralhad Jot and ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Biharilal Zunzunwala an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom196
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29th Oct. 1971 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Region, Nagpur who is empowered with the powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, referred to hereinafter as the Act, granting permission to the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 to file a suit under Section 50 of the Act.2. It appears from the record that the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 filed an application under Sections 50 and 50A of the Act before the Charity Commissioner, Bombay, which was later on forwarded to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. In the said application these respondents alleged that they are the donors of the registered public trust run under the name and style of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal of Akot, referred to hereinafter as the Mandal, According to them, they are the persons interested in the Trust as they are the donors and their wards are also studying in the sc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Caltex Oil Refining (Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR404(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference one question was originally referred to us under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. After the aforesaid reference, both the parties preferred applications to the High Court being Income-tax Application Nos. 3 of 1968 and 41 of 1968, respectively, and the following further two questions were referred to us, the first of them being at the instance of the Commissioner and the second question being at the instance of the assessee. These three questions may now be set out being designated respectively as questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, question No. 1 being the original question referred under s. 61(1) and questions Nos. 2 and 3 being the questions directed to be referred under s. 66(2) at the instance of the Commissioner and the assessee, respectively. Question No. 1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fencing round the refinery processing units constituted 'plant' so as to be entitled to depreciation and rebate ?' Question No. 2 : ...
Tag this Judgment!Maniklal Madanlal Lahoti Vs. Tukaram Ganpat Tehore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR522; 1978MhLJ316
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The election to Chikhali Municipal Council was held on November 17, 1974 in which petitioner Maniklal and respondent No. 1 Tukaram were the contesting candidates from Ward No. 17 of Chikhali. The poll was held on November 17, 1974 and the votes were counted on November 18, 1974. As a result of this counting respondent No. 1 Tukaram was declared elected from Ward No. 17. The total votes polled at the election were 456. Respondent No. 1 Tukaram secured 224 votes whereas petitioner Maniklal got 222 votes. Ten votes were declared invalid. In view of this counting respondent No. 1 Tukaram was declared elected by the Returning Officer as a Councillor from Ward No. 17.2. After the said election, the petitioner filed an election petition before the district Judge, Buldana, under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, referred to hereinafter as the Act. The main ground raised in the election petition related to the denial of right of franchise to two voters,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv, Bombay Vs. Teritex Knittin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR634(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The assessee-company in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a private limited company which was incorporated on May 30, 1970 for the manufacture of knitted fabrics. We are concerned for the assessment year 1972-73, for which the corresponding previous year is the 13 months period ending June 30, 1971. In the year of account the assessee purchased an olf building for Rs. 3,26,425. This is the figure mentioned in the statement of case, though in the order of the Income-tax Officer, annexure 'A', it is stated that the total consideration of land and building purchase by the assessee-company was Rs. 3,10,000. We were informed at the bar that the difference of Rs. 16,425 represented the charges for registration of the conveyance. This is made clear in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On August 21, 1970, the assessee installed newly purchased machinery and thereafter claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, before t...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR732(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee, in this case is a license who holds a licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for the distribution of electricity. So far as the financial working of the assessee-company is concerned, there is no dispute that it is regulated by the provisions of sections 57 and 57A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Sixth Schedule therein. The questions which have been referred at the instant of the assessed and the revenue arise out of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. 2. In the assessment year 1957-58, the Wealth-tax Officer restored to global valuation and took into account the value of the fixed assets as per the balance-sheet of the company which, according to the wealth-tax Officer, was more than the written down value computed for the purposes of income-tax and was more approximate to the market value. In respect of the assessment years 1958-59, apart from the valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Ramchand Jethma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR384(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. Admittedly the amounting year in respect of the assessee for the purpose of business and ordinary dividends for the period in question was the year ending October 31, 1956. The assessee held 13,990 shares out of a total capital of 20,000 shares in Krishna Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (referred to by the Tribunal as 'Hindustan'). Though the assessment of the assessee related to the accounting year ending October 31, 1956, the Ito took the accounting year ending March 31, 1957, as the previous year for the purposes of deemed dividends under s. 2(6A)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1922. On the basis of the accounts of Krishna and Hindustant, the ITO found that in the account with Krishna company, though on January 1, 1956, there was credit balance in favour of the assesse amounting to Rs. 8,59,435 and this continued till October 5, 1956, there was a debit of Rs. 6,23,541 as on December 31, 1956, though by the end of March 31, 1957, the assesse had again become a creditor in the sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian Metal Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)377; [1978]41STC169(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'). The question referred to us for our determination is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding in its judgment in Appeal No. 134 of 1968 that no purchase tax was payable under the said section on the purchase of the ship 'Jalapratap' by the appellants under the instrument dated 10th November, 1965, and which ship was dismantled ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The respondents are a registered dealer under the said Act and deal in iron and steel, iron scrap, electric motors and machinery. They also purchase unserviceable ships for scrapping and dismantling. Under an instrument of sale dated 10th November, 1965, the respondents purchased a ship named 'Jalapratap' along with its...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Hind Rajasthan Constr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR304(Bom)
Desai, J.1. By this application the Commissioner wants the following three questions to be found in para. 5 of the application to be referred to the High Court. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no proper case for the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,92,000 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee and in consequently cancelling it (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that means rea had not been established in the case (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the onus laid down upon it under the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and that consequently no penalty under the said section would be leviable ?' 2. The application arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Express Block and Engraving Studios Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)242; [1978]41STC102(Bom)
Kania, J. 1. These are two references under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The same two questions have been referred to us for our determination in these references. These questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the impugned transactions in respect of supply of designs by the respondents to their customers were not sales as defined by section 2(g) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the impugned sales of blocks by the respondents to the Russian Embassy at New Delhi were exempt from tax under article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India ?' 2. As far as question No. (1) is concerned, Mr. Sanghavi, the learned Advocate for the applicant, has stated that he doe...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Bhaskar Patil Vs. Pandurang Janardan Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR255
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after referring to the facts of the case proceeded.] The learned counsel for the appellants was not able to point out a single reason as to why the plaintiff's witnesses Balkrishna and Narayan, should not be believed.2. He could not explain as to why Bhaskar, during his lifetime, never treated either Janardan or his widow or children as anybody but members of his own family. 3. The Hindu law on the point was settled long ago in Suraj Narain v. Ratan Lal (1917) L.R. 44 I.A 201 : 19 Bom. L.R. 737. Lord Buckmaster L. C. precisely observed (p. 205):In the Hindu joint family the law is that while it is possible that a member of the joint family should make separate acquisition, and keep moneys and property so acquired as his separate property, yet the question whether he has done so is to be judged from all the circumstances of the ease.4. The position was reiterated by him in Rajani Kanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal , which, though a case under the Dayabhaga, does not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »