Mumbai Court November 1977 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Central Provinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR392(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The following two questions of law have been referred to us : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of the agreement, entered into between the assessee-company and the Secretary of State for India, dated the March 27, 1916, the income derived by the assessee-company was assessable as business income (2) If the answer to the question No. (1) is in the negative and the income is properly assessable as income from 'other sources', whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses claimed by the company were deductible as expenses wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for purposes of earning its income ?' 2. The assessee before us is a public limited company, whose managing agents at one time were Killick Industries Ltd. The company was registered under the Indian Companies Act on November 11, ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Burmah Shell Refineries Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC337(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. 2. The respondents carry on the business of processing and refining crude oil for the purpose of manufacturing kerosene from it. The crude oil so processed and refined belongs to Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the marketing company'). The respondents after refining the crude oil into kerosene hand over the kerosene to the marketing company. For the purpose of refining crude oil the respondents require sulphuric acid. Accordingly, they entered into an agreement dated 9th June, 1955, with the Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company Limited (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the chemical company') under which the respondents agreed to purchase all their requirements of sulphuric acid from the chemical company upon certain terms and conditions set out...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Patwa Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR879(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred in this reference must be answered against the assessee on the short ground that the entire order of the Tribunal is based on a misapprehension of the provisions of section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Then question referred is whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee is not entitled to be registered under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The question arises out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64 and must be considered to be in respect of that year. The assessee having failed to file a return within the time within the assessee, which is a partnership firm, was called upon to file it by a notice under section 139(2), the Income-tax Officer proceeded to make an ex parte assessment order under section 144 of the Act. Even though notice under section 142(1) of the Act was served on the assessee calling upon him to produce account books on August 28, 1964, the assessee did not produce th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Nagappa Abdulpurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR375(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922' 2. In this reference we are concerned with the deed of partnership dated 1st September, 1959, annexure 'A' to the statement of case, together with a deed of amendment called deed of agreement dated 30th October, 1959, annexure 'B' to the statement of case. On the basis of these deeds the registration was claimed for the firm. The Income-tax officer refused registration as according to him the deeds did not bring about any relation of partners among the parties to the deeds and there was no intention to act upon the terms of the same. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee then took up the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the circumstances und...
Hukamchand Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR870(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company which had its registered office at Indore which was a part of the erstwhile Holkar State. The textile mill of the assessee is also at Indore and the assessee-company was assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1938-39 to 1949-50 in the status of 'non-resident' except for the assessment year 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1948-49 for which it was held to be a resident and ordinarily resident-company. The assessee was charged to tax in respect of the assessment year 1948-49 in respect of remittances made for purchase of stores and income from interest or securities, In respect of the said assessment year 1948-49, the assessment was challenged and the income in respect of remittances which was originally brought to tax was deleted. The assessee, however, did not challenge its status by filing any second appeal and thus the income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-v Vs. Traub (India) P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1979]118ITR525(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the Commissioner wants us to make an order in respect of the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the donation of machine worth Rs. 17,150 by the assessee-company as publicity and advertisement expenses under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in granting interest under section 214(1) to the assessee for assessment year 1972-73 on the excess amount paid which was not in according with the provisions of sections 207 to 213 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We propose to deal with question No. 2 first. Pursuant to notice issued by the ITO under s. 210 of the Act, the assessee had made diverse payments by way of advance tax on June 29, 1971, September 20, 1971, December 21, 1971, and March 17,...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. C.D. Sanghavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1979]119ITR863(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, and s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, since it arises out of the assessment for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the remuneration and director's fees received by Shri Champaklal from Champaklal and Brothers Limited could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee-HUF for all the three year ?' 2. Originally, there was a HUF consisting of one Doulatrai H. Sanghavi and his three sons, Champaklal D. Sanghavi, M. D. Sanghavi and Rasiklal D. Sanghavi. Champaklal is the karta of a smaller HUF, which is the assessee. D. H. Sanghavi was a partner having 12 annas share in the firm of M/s. Champaklal & Co., which dealt in cotton waste. There was a partition in the assessment year 1948-49 between Doulatrai and his sons and Champaklal became a partner in the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Advance Insurance Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: [1979]119ITR660(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference in respect of two assessment years. Certain questions are referred at the instance of the Commissioner and a common question for the two assessment years at the instance of the assessee. For the first of the two assessment years we are governed by the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. For the second year we are governed by the I. T. Act, 1961, but the change in the statutory provisions applicable makes no difference to the questions referred to us except that the reference will be under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, for the first year and under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the later year. The questions for the respective years are found in para. 9 of the statement of case, but we propose to give them fresh numbers so that they may be more easily answered, since we are informed that, as far as this court is concerned, the questions referred at the instance of the Commissioner are concluded. As far as the common question for the two ...
Sivaji Ramji Patil Vs. Jalgaon Fal Wa Bhajipala Vikri Karnari Sahakari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR519; 1978MhLJ801
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. The judgment debtors Nos. 1 to 3 have filed this appeal against an order passed by the learned district Judge, Jalgaon rejecting the contention of the judgment debtors that the darkhast application is barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed in limine. As the point involved in both the appeals is the same, it will suffice for the present purpose if reference is made to the facts in Second Appeal No. 523 of 1973. On March 6, 1957 an award in respect of a monetary claim was made by the Officer on Special Duty under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On September 26, 1969 a certificate was issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as contemplated by Section 59 of the Act. On April 2, 1970 the decree-holder filed a darkhast being darkhast Ho. 109 of 1970 for execution of this award through the civil Court. The trial Court held that the darkhast application was barred by limitation and dismissed it. In an ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR877(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal it has been established in this case that an expenditure of Rs. 15,500 was incurred by the assessee for the purpose of acquiring office premises at New Delhi and that in connection with the same transaction, stamp duty of Rs. 750 has been paid. The question was whether these payments were allowable deductions while computing the total income of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1964-65. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer as also by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal held that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was a revenue expenditure and was, therefore, allowable. The following question was, therefore, referred at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was, rightly held that the payments of Rs. 15,500 as brokerage and Rs. 750 as stamp duty in connectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »