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.
Century Spg. and. Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR301(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred the instance of the assessee are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, wealth-tax payable by the assessee under the W.T. Act, 1957, of Rs. 3,00,528 for the assessment year 1959-60, is an allowable deduction under s. 10(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in arriving at the total income for the said assessment year (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, professional fees of Rs. 1,500 in regard to the said wealth-tax assessment is an allowable deduction in arriving at the total income for the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. The facts in this case as found by the Tribunal are that in respect of the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,00,528 as expenditure to be taken note of while computing the income of the assessee as the said amount was paid by way of wealth-tax. The assessee also claimed Rs. 1,500 which represented professional fees expended in r...
M.G. Bhatt Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: [1980]123ITR931(Bom); 1978MhLJ457
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, who is a qualified architect and civil engineer, was partner in a partnership firm called M/s. Kore & Bhatt, Civil Engineers and Surveyors. Apart from the assessee, there were two other partners in the firm, namely, Shri V. M. Bhatt, the son of the assessee, and one Shri R. M. Vadhelwalla. The assessee's share in the partnership firm was 33 1/2%, that of Shri V. M. Bhatt 15% and that of Shri Vadhelwalla 49 1/2%. The assessment year in question is 1962-63. During that year, according to the assessee, he had entered into an agreement with one Shri K. G. Kapadia, who was already an employee of the firm on a salary of Rs. 500 per month, by which Shri Kapadia was to attend to the duties, which the assessee was supposed to perform, as directed by the assessee and the assessee was to share with Shri Kapadia the profits, which he would earn from the partnership firm, to the extent of 11%. The agreement in pursuance of which Shri Kapadia was to work is filed with ...
Vassanji Sons and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: [1980]125ITR462(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the assessee before us is a private limited company. The reference is under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the following two questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,60,185 being the value of the shares held by the assessee in Navanagar Industries Ltd., now in liquidation (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,30,925 either under section 10(2)(xi) first part, or, in the alternative, under section 12B as a capital loss ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment for the year 1961-62, the corresponding accounting period being the financial year ending March 31, 1961. The assessee was incorporated on June 11, 1945. According to the memorandum of association of the company, the main object of the assesse...
Abdul Gani Dinalli MomIn Vs. Mohamed Yusuf Mohamed Isak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR646
Jahagirdar, J.1. On a concurrent finding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months, the two Courts below have passed a decree for eviction against him. The petitioner was occupying one gala in House No. 102 of Bhiwandi in Thane District. The rent of the suit premises was Rs. 5 per month. The present respondent became the landlord of the suit house in 1970 when this house was allotted to him to his share in a family partition. On October 4, 1972, the respondent served a notice upon the petitioner terminating his tenancy with effect from November 30, 1972. At the time of the notice, the petitioner was in arrears of rent for nearly twenty-five months.2. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 318 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi, for possession of the premises in occupation of the petitioner on various grounds, one of which was that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months and tha...
Pandurang Ramji Doiphode Vs. Dhondiram Ramji Doiphode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR279
Apte, J.1. This appeal by original defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 is directed against the final decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 1958 on January 31, 1977 determining the future mesne profits from the date of suit till 1967 to be paid by the defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 to the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 who are other sharers.2. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who respectively are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal, are real brothers while appellant No. 1, who is original defendant No. 1, is their step brother. Appellants Nos, 2 to 5, who were defendants Nos. 5 to 8 in the trial Court, are the sons of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4, since deceased, was the natural mother of plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and step-mother of defendant No. 1.3. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 along with the sons of defendant No. 1 formed a joint Hindu family.4. The family owned agricultural lands at four villages of Pi...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1977
Reported in: [1979]119ITR900(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee at whose instance three questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, is the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The three questions referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,71,374 being the income-tax deducted at source during the inter-valuation period of 15 months ended March 31, 1963, could be added to the surplus disclosed in the valuation balance-sheet whilst computing the income of the assessee under rule 2(1) (b) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 196 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,64,028 being the amount paid during the inter-valuation period of 15 months ended March 31, 1963, towards compensation payable under section 36 of the said Life Insurance Corporation Act to chief agents and special agents was not expenditure deductible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43 of the Income-tax Ac (3...
Mohanlal Gokulchandji Vs. Khimraj Bhagaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1977
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR378; 1978MhLJ611
Jahagirdar, J.1. Despite the fact that there is a somewhat long history of litigation between the parties, it would be enough for the purpose of the disposal of this petition to narrate only few facts. The petition arises out of the proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises which are one Gala in House No. 85 at village Bhaindar, in Thana taluka of Thana District. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner is the son-in-law of the respondent but his wife is dead for some years. Originally there was an agitation about the character of the holding of the petitioner as to whether it was a licence or a lease. That controversy no longer survives and the parties have now proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises.2. The respondent filed a suit, b...
Nagarmal Baijnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR133(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax assessments for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and the excess profits tax assessments for the chargeable accounting periods ending November 4, 1945, and March 31, 1946, made on M/s. Nagarmal Baijnath, a firm which was dissolved and whose business was discontinued at the time of the assessments, were validly made ?' 2. The assessee before us is Messrs. Nagarmal Baijnath, which firm consisted of four partners, viz., Nagarmal, Banarsilal, Baijnath and Brijmohan. Nagarmal died in 1961, and his representative was his son, Bansarsilal, who was a partner in the firm. Nagarmal and Banarsilal were the financing partners whereas Baijnath and Brijmohan were working partners. The firm...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Crown Life Insurance C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1977
Reported in: [1980]123ITR641(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this reference made at the instance of the revenue is the Crown Life Insurance Co., and the assessment year in respect of which the following question has been referred is the assessment year 1951-52 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in computing the surplus for the year 1950, only the amount which has been actually allowed as a deduction in the assessment for 1950-51 out of the amount reserved for policyholders during the quinquennium ended December 31, 1949, should be added back under the second proviso to rule 3(a) ?' 2. The earlier inter-valuation period in respect of the assessee was a period of five years from January 1, 1945, to December 31, 1949. In the assessment year 1950-51 while computing the income of the circumstances in accordance with r. 2(b) and r. 3 of the rules in the Schedule to the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, half of the amount reserved for policyholders was allowed as ...
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Rajrani Ramrang M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR241
Vaidya, J.1. [His Lordship after narrating the facts giving rise to the present Appeal, proceeded.] It was next contended by Mr. Rane that the damages awarded in these two matters were excessive and had no basis at all in the evidence on the record, in so far as the general damages of Rs. 7,000 paid in respect of the injuries to Ramrang Manocha and Rs. 20,000 awarded as general damages to Chhabra are concerned. Mr. Rane took us through the evidence with regard to the special damages for medical treatment and loss of earnings; but we find it impossible to interfere with the findings of the learned Civil Judge in the two suits, so far as, those items are concerned. There was nothing exaggerated in the plaint about the medical expenses or the medicines or the loss of earnings of the plaintiffs. We find no reason at all to interfere with the decrees passed in respect of the same as special damages.2. In support of the cross objections, which, as stated above, relate to the deduction of wha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »