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-i Vs. Executors of Estate of L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR869(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner but under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, and the following question is referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 71,279 was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : The assessees are the executors of Shri P. L. Paruck, who was a partner in two well-known firms of solicitors. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1958-59, the accounting period being mentioned as November 23, 1957, to March 31, 1958. Actually, Shri Paruck was a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Croe and M/s. Mulla and Mulla. Both the firms maintained accounts on the cash basis. Shri Paruck died on November 22, 1957, and, therefore, ceased to be a partner in the said two firms from that date. Whilst he was alive he had rec...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR45(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee in this case is the Life Insurance Corporation which is a statutory corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, with effect from September 1, 1956. Though the assessment year is 1963-64, for the purpose of assessment the inter-valuation period is the period from January 1, 1962, to March 31, 1963. Under the Life Insurance Corporation Act under section 7, it was provided that on the appointed day, which was September 1, 1956, there shall be transferred to and vested in the Corporation all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers. 'Controlled business', so far as the present reference is concerned, was the life insurance business. 2. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provides : 'The assets appertaining to the controlled business of an insurer shall be deemed to include all rights and powers, and all the property, whether movable or immovable, appertaining to his controlled business, including,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oilseeds Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Bom)309
Chandurkar, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner the following question of law has been referred to us under S. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in withdrawing the corporation tax rebate amounting to Rs. 28,461.30 by resorting to S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company and we are concerned with the year 1960-61 corresponding to the accounting period being S.Y. 2015 (30-11-1958 to 31-10-1959). We are concerned in this reference with rectification proceedings under S. 154. B. letters dated 13th and 26th March, 1964 the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to show cause why the original order of assessment should not be rectified under s. 154. We are concerned only with first of the three grounds which read as follows. (i) The amount of Rs. 28,461.30 carried forward from the assessment year 1959-60 was to be withdrawn...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Chunilal Bhagwandas Meh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR436(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner wanted three questions to be referred, but the Tribunal only accepted the third question proposed by the Commissioner and referred the same to us. The Tribunal at the request of the assessee also referred one other question. Accordingly, the following two questions have been referred to us, the first of them at the instance of the Commissioner and the second one at the instance of the assessee. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to act under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order for 1959-60 passed on August 20, 1960, could be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1959-60, the accoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. H.R. Aslot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR255(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any capital gains arose to the assessee when he received an amount of Rs. 4,67,529 in terms of the award of the arbitrator ?' 2. The assessee, H. R. Aslot, was a partner in a partnership firm known as Automobile and Agricultural Industries Corporation which was constituted under the partnership deed dated January 31, 1953. Apart from the assessee there were 7 other partners out of whom N. K. Naik was one. One of the terms of the partnership deed was that if any dispute arose between the partners or their representatives, whether during or after the termination of the partnership and whether in relation to the interpretation of the partnership deed or to any act or omission of any party to the dispute or to any act which ought to be done by the parties in dispute or an...
Commissioner of Income-tax, City-i Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) P. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR110(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. A the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 : 'Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 72,434 paid to Messrs. Ram & Co. was allowance as a deduction of determining the company's profits under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1972 ?' 2. The assessee-company had entered into an agreement of agency with a company by name Ram & co. Faiz Bazar, Delhi Gate, Delhi for the purposes of distribution of food and pharmaceutical product of the assessee-company within certain territorial limits specified in the agreement Ram & co. who would hereinafter be referred to as the 'agent', was to be paid 5% of the net value of the goods excluding the value of additional freight charges, if any, octroi or terminal tax, if any, as invoiced by the agent. As provided in clause 3 of the agreement, it was to come into force on 1st of December, 1947, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. T. Maneklal Mfg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR725(Bom)
Desai, J.1. Both these references may be disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they are references at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the same items but for two separate assessment years. In ITR No. 73 of 1967, the question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 39,854 and Rs. 45,610 were rightly allowed as revenue deductions for assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively ?' In ITR No. 38 of 1968, the question referred to us reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 39,101 was rightly allowed as revenue deduction ?' 2. The facts may be briefly state : The assessee-company for the purpose of carrying on its business entered into a number of collaboration agreements with certain foreign manufacturers. In these references, we are concerned with four agreements. The first one is dated January 30, 1959, ente...
Marutrao Pandurang Zende Vs. Eknath Shivram Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1977
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR234
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a tenant's petition against the decree passed by the learned Fourth Extra Assistant Judge of Poona whereby the plaintiff's suit for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner was decreed. The petitioner and the respondent will hereinafter be called 'the defendant' and 'the plaintiff' respectively. This petition raises an interesting question of law relating to the consequences of the withdrawal by the notification of the provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Bombay Rent Act') from certain areas to which the said provisions had been made applicable earlier.2. Admittedly the defendant was in possession of a part of the house No. 589, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', situated at Saswad in Purandar Taluka of Poona District. The defendant entered in the suit premises as a tenant in January 1963 and continued to occupy the same as a tenant. It is said that the initial rent...
R.D. Paranjpe Vs. Ram Jethmalani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom356
ORDER1. This election petition arises out of the election in respect of the seat for the Lok Sabha from Bombay North-West Constituency No. 18 in the election held in March 1977. There were six contesting candidates including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of this seat. As per the results declared by the Returning Officer, respondent No. 1, Ram Jethmalani secured 2,46,446 votes, respondent No. 2, H.R. Gokhale secured 1,52,947 votes and the petitioner secured 1,721 votes. The other candidates secured a smaller number of votes than these three. The Returning Officer, therefore, declared respondent No. 1 to have been duly elected. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared to be null and void, that respondent No. 2 be declared as disqualified and the petitioner be declared to have been duly elected and returned to the Parliament from the Bombay North-West Constituency No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as '...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. ScIndia Steam Navigation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1977
Reported in: [1980]125ITR118(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, five questions in all have been referred to us, three at the instance of the assessee and two at the instance of the Commissioner. These five questions are as follows: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contribution of Rs. 3,25,000 made by the company to the election fund of the Indian National Congress was an admissible deduction in determining the business profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act/ 1922, for the assessment year 1958-59 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 20,03,448 out of the sale proceeds of the ship S. S. Jalakirti was includible in the business profits of the company in the assessment year 1958-59, under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) or section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 14,196 realised ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »