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.
Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1977
Reported in: [1990]186ITR181(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The questions which have been referred to this court at the instance of the assessee arise out of the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 in which a liability to make certain payments to a foreign company with whom the assessee had entered into a collaboration agreement had already arisen, according to the assessee, in terms of the said agreement. 2. The assessee is limited company, which was established on 30th May, 1961, for the purpose of manufacture and sale of steel ball and thrust bearings. This business was originally carried on by a firm, Messrs. Dirajlal & Co., and was taken over by the assessee on 1st of August, 1961. During the calendar year 1962, the assessee-company entered into a collaboration agreement on 22nd March, 1962, with an Austrian concern known as Messrs. Steyr-Daimler-Puch Aktiengesellschaft, Steyr, to which the Tribunal has referred as 'Steyr', but we shall hereafter refer to the said company as the 'Austrian comp...
Chhatrapati Shivaji Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)451
CHANDURKAR, J. - This is a reference at the instance of the assessee in which two questions have been referred and we have found considerable difficulty in ascertaining the scope of question No. 2.The assessee is a sugar factory and actual production of sugar had stated only on 17th January, 1957 though the factory building was erected and machinery was installed by the end of August, 1956. The accounting year of the society was 1st of July to 30th of June and in response to a notice issued under S. 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee filed its first return of income for the assessment year 1958-59 showing income as nil. In the column relating to particulars regarding claim for depreciation of the assets also no details were given and the remark was Nil. When the Income-tax Officer took up the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1958-59 for consideration, he passed a cryptic order as follows :'The assessee is a co-operative society registered as such de...
Phiroze H. Kudianavala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR873(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with the three assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. Accordingly, for the first assessment year the reference is under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereas for the two later years the reference is under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee was at the relevant time a partner in a firm of architects known as Messrs. Gregson, Batley & King, with its head office at Chartered Bank Building, Fort Bombay. He claimed deduction of various items of expenditure against his share of the income from the partnership for the three material years. We are not concerned with the details of these expenses, but they pertain to expenses for the running of a motor car, depreciation on the car, entertainment of clients and other expenses. As far as the last mentioned item is concerned, it is indicated in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeal that they pertain to purchase of several purch...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii, Bombay Vs. Khimji Teju Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR168(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Before setting down the question referred to us, a few facts may be stated : In this reference we are concerned with the assessment years 1942-43 to 1947-48 and 1952-53 to 1958-59, the corresponding accounting periods being S. Y. 1997 to S. Y. 2002 and S. Y. 2007 to S. Y. 2013, respectively. There were two sets of appeals before the Income-tax Tribunal, one set arising out of the original assessments and the other, against the reassessments made under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as a result of certain proceedings before the Income-tax Investigation Commission. The quantum was not in dispute in the appeals and the short question that was agitated before the Tribunal and which arises for consideration in the reference before us was whether the income from the firm of Messrs. Teju Kaya & Co. pertaining to the share of Shri...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: [1981]130ITR739(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The question which has been referred to this court under s. 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, EA Machines (now called Data Processing Machines) were office appliances not eligible for allowance of development rebate under section 33(1)(2) appears to be a mistake) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1962-63, a sum of Rs. 3,56,154 was determined as development rebate under s. 33(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, on DP Machines (EAM), card plant machinery and workshop machinery, and the ITO allowed that amount as a deduction. The Commissioner having taken the view that the amount could not be allowed as a deduction issued a notice under s. 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961, and after hearing the assessee took the view that EA Machines were part of the office appliances. He, therefore, held that development rebate to the...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Film Laboratories Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC52(Bom)
Madon, J. 1. The respondents were registered as dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, with effect from 10th June, 1954. They are also registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondents carry on the business of processing exposed films brought to them by their customers. 2. This reference deals with the assessment period 1st April, 1954, to 9th June, 1954. The respondents were also assessed to tax in respect of subsequent periods, and in respect of the assessment period in question as also the subsequent periods certain questions arose in their assessments, all of which were decided against the respondents by the sales tax authorities. The respondents ultimately went to the Sales Tax Tribunal, and the revision applications in respect of the periods under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and their second appeal under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, were all heard together and disposed of by the Tribunal by a common judgment, deciding all those questions in ...
Bhogilal Devchand and Sons Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)384; [1978]41STC177(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 are as follows : '(1) Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the conclusion that the goods purchased by the applicants were not marketable (2) Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to justify the conclusion that the semi-finished utensils purchased by the applicants on behalf of their principals were manufactured by the applicants (3) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of section 14, the Tribunal erred in holding that there was contravention on the part of the applicants under section 14 read with section 11 of the said Act in the matter of their purchases worth Rs. 1,75,138 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The applicants are a partnership firm registered under the said Act as a dealer as w...
Bablu Alias Jagdishsingh Vs. Ladharam M. Mirchandani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR310
Jahagirdar, J.1. The concurrent refusal of two Courts below to decree the landlord's suit for possession is challenged by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner, who is a minor, has filed this petition through his guardian and in the trial Court he was plaintiff No. 1. The suit itself had been filed by two plaintiffs of whom the present petitioner was plaintiff No. 1 and his father's sister one Pushpakaur Chatursing Shikh was the second plaintiff. Both of them together had purchased House No. 842 situated at Dastur Meher Road in Poona. This purchase was made on August 19, 1968. In the said house the respondent was residing in two rooms, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. By a notice dated March 24, 1970 the tenancy of the respondent was terminated by the petitioner and the other joint owner with effect from the end of April 1970. The immediate provocation for the issuance of the notice to the respondent was arrears ...
Bhullan Vs. the Sarvodaya Vita Kavelu Kumbhar Kam Sahakari Audyogik Ut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom259; (1978)80BOMLR634; 1978MhLJ276
Dharmadhikabi, J. 1. The petitioner Pandit Bhullan alias Ram-shankar Tiwari who is carrying on business of manufacturing bricks filed an application bearing No. ML-274/67 to the Collector, Nagpur on 18-5-1967 for grantof mining lease for brick clay over 15.33 acres of land from survey No. 121/3 of village Rohna, Patwari Halka No. 53, tahsil Saoner, district Nagpur.2. After filing of this application, the respondent No. 4 Bansilal Paliwal who is the Secretary of the Society known as Sarvodaya Vita, Kavelu Kumbhar kam Sahakari Audyogik Utpadak Sanstha Limited filed an application for mining lease for the same area on behalf of the society on 11-7-1967. This application came to be dismissed by the Collector according to the petitioner on the ground that the financial position of the said cooperative Society was not sound, whereas according to the respondents, on a technical ground of the absence of certificate from the District Deputy Registrar (Cooperative Societies), Nagpur, about the w...
Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR256(Bom)
Desai, J.1. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1961-62. It may be stated that in the very next reference, viz., Income-tax Reference No. 184 of 1970, we are concerned with the very same assessee for the two subsequent years, and the question referred to us in that reference will have to be answered in accordance with the answer given to the question referred to us in this reference. 2. The assessee is a private limited company publishing a leading Marathi newspaper in Poona. The company at the relevant period was a closely-held company and its directors (and we are informed, the only two share-holders) were Dr. and Mrs. N. B. Parulekar. The dispute giving rise to this reference relates to the expenditure incurred by Miss Leela Parulekar, daughter of these two directors, on her education U.S.A. Miss Parulekar is a Master ofs of the Poona University with English and French as special subjects. She worked in the editorial department of the paper from September, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »