Mumbai Court March 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 Sales Tax Vs. Hansraj Vishram Ravani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Bom)368
Madon, J. 1. This is a group of eight References under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), which can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The assessees, who are the Respondents before us in all these eight References, are a partnership firm. The assessee-firm was registered as a dealer under the said Act. The place of business of the Respondents was situate within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Licence Circle, III Division, Bombay. At the relevant time, the Sales Tax, Officer, Licence Circle, III Division, Bombay, was one V. S. Nadkarni. Accordingly, the Respondents were filing their quarterly returns before the said Nadkarni. On October 28, 1955 the place of business of the Respondents was raided by one V. S. Deshpande, who was the Sales Tax Officer (III), Enforcement Branch, Bombay, and certain books of account were seized. Thereafter in respect of the assessment year 1953-54, that is, April 1, 1953 to Ma...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kedarnath Zumbarlal Malpani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ824
Jahagirdar, J.1. The respondent-accused in this appeal had purchased a scooter on 19th July 1973 and within one year thereafter on 12th June 1974 he purchased another scooter. The prosecution was started against him on the ground that he had contravened Clause (8) of the Scooter (Distribution and Sale) Control Order, 1960 which has been issued toy the Central Government by virtue of the power conferred upon it by section 1SG of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Section 24(1) (iii) provides for punishment for six months or fine or with both for the offence consisting of contravention of any order made under Section 18G of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.2. Clause (8) of the Scooter (Distribution and Sale) Control Order 1960, prohibits a purchase of a new scooter by a person who has purchased another scooter in the same year except with the permission in writing from the authority specified in that order. From the dates mentioned above it is clear...
Shah Amrutlal Shantilal Shah Firm and ors. Vs. Madhyavarti Sahakari Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Bom431; 1977MhLJ842
1. The appeal Is filed by the original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Cross-Objections are filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff, which is a registered Co-operative Society, filed the present suit against defendant No. 1, a registered firm and defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, styling them to be the partners of that firm, either for the recovery of 1191 Sarees or in the alternative for its price Rs. 10,260/- Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 firm were supplied Sarees during the period from 5th December 1959 to 28th January 1964 under a practice called 'Sanjaiti' supply. It was the practice that Sarees were to remain with the defendants in deposit and price was to be paid for the Sarees as the same were sold and defendants were at liberty to return the remaining unsold Sarees. Out of the stock so supplied, it had been the case of the plaintiff that 1191 Sarees were in deposit with defendants and that defendants were liable to return the same or pay the price thereof. ...
H.J. Doshi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1977
Reported in: [1980]123ITR893(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Pursuant to the order of the High Court at the instance of the assessee the following two questions are referred for our determination under of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax was competent in law to pass the order dated the December 24, 1962, setting aside the original assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the principle of valuation under of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, applies while valuing the shares of Amritlal & Co. Private Limited, in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The fact necessary for the first question need not be stated as the counsel for the assessee has not pressed that question. The facts relating to question No. 2 are as under : The assessee are four individuals. Question Ns. 2 relates to valuation of certa...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. Vishnu Cotton Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR546(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. In this reference made under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to this court by the Appellate Tribunal, the following question of law has been referred for determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for computing the net wealth of the assessee under section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, the values of the block assets of the assessee-company should be taken at the figures as they appear in the relevant balance-sheet or at their depreciated or written down values as determined by the income-tax authorities for income-tax purposes ?' 2. The assessee which is a textile mill, is a limited company and the question relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being December 31, 1956. It appears that in its balance-sheet as on December 31, 1956. the assessee-company had shown the value of its assets namely, building, plant and machinery at Rs. 12,46,154 and Rs. 42,76,156, respectively. While returning its net...
National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR211(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made to this court by the Tribunal and the section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, two questions have been referred to us for our opinion which runs thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made in the status of individual under Wealth-tax Act against the assessee in its representative capacity as trustees, in respect of the value of the trust estate which invested in them, minors the value of the life interest of the beneficiaries which has been separately assets in their hand, is legal and valid (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the basis of valuation of the assets held by the trustees, adopted by the wealth-tax authorities and by the Tribunal, is valid and proper ?' 2. The questions relate to the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1957. One F. E. Dinshaw, since deceased had created a trust by his will dated July 23, 1934. He died in 193...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Mahavirprasad Bubna an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1977
Reported in: [1980]122ITR570(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question in this reference relates to the correct interpretation of s. 4(1)(a)(ii) of the W.T. Act, 1957, and it relates to the assessment year 1963-64 for which the corresponding valuation date was October 28, 1962. 2. The respondent-assesses are six brothers. They along with their grandfather were partners in a firm called Brijmohan Kaluram. On July 23, 1962, these six assesses-partners purported to make gifts of Rs. 50,000 each to the minor sons or daughters of the other brothers. Such gifts were effected by issue of cheques and evidenced by declarations of gifts. On voluntary returns filed by the brothers they were subjected to gift-tax under the G.T. Act. The particulars of the gifts and the names of the do ness are as under : ----------------------------------------------------------------------Donor Donee Amount Date Date ofRs. declaration----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Bishwanath 1. Urmila Ramniranjan 20,000 23-7-62...
Municipal Council Morshi Vs. Tulsiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom92; 1977MhLJ735
Dharmadhikaki, J.1. These three Civil Revision Applications have been filed by the Municipal Council, Morshi, challenging the orders passed by the Sessions Judge. Amravati as well as the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morshi, declaring the bills issued by the Municipal Council for recovery of amount of the tax for the year 1971-72 as illegal and directing the Municipal Council to refund the amount of tax paid by the opponents. As all these 3 revision applications raise common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The three houses concerned in these cases are house No. 127 belonging to Tulsiram and houses Nos. 129 and 142 belonging to Vishwanath Gadbail. All the houses are situated in Ward No. 10 of Morshi town in Amravati district. The previous assessment figures for these 3 houses for the assessment years 1968 to 1971 were Rs. 9.55. Rs. 13.50 and Rs. 43.50 respectively. The new assessment of taxes on these very hous...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Daimler Benz A.G.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom307; 1978TAXLR924
Tulzapurkar, Actg. C.J.1. In this reference made under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 two questions have been referred to this Court by the Appellate Tribunal for determination, the second of which is clearly concluded by the decision of this Court rendered on 16th Nov. 1976 in I. T. Reference No. 35 of 1967, while on the first question since there are apparently conflicting views expressed in two decisions of our Court, the same has been referred to this larger Bench. The two questions referred to this court by the Tribunal run thus:1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax against the levy of penal interest was competent? 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses was entitled to relief under Section 15C of the Act of 1922 in respect of dividend received from Telco, on the basis that 27% of the dividend was exempt as declared in the dividend warrant, or on...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Daimler Benz A.G.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: [1977]108ITR961(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, Actg. C.J.1. In this reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, two questions have been referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal for determination, the second of which is clearly concluded by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., : [1977]108ITR869(Bom) , while on the first question since there are apparently conflicting views expressed in two decisions of our court, the same has been referred to this larger Bench. The two questions referred to this court by the Tribunal run thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner of Income-tax against the levy of penal interest was competent (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 15C of the Act of 1922 in respect of dividend received from Telco, on the basis that 27% of the dividend was exempt as d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »