Mumbai Court June 1977 Judgments
Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR654(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee the following tow questions were initially referred by the Income-tax Tribunal for our determination : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest paid by the assessee-firm on Rs. 9,41,344 borrowed by it could be disallowed in determining its business profits for the assessement year 1951-52 2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 was attracted to the trading results in the assessee's Coonoor branch for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 and its branch called Eastern Stores for the assessment year 1952-53 ?' 2. These were the only two questions referred to by the Tribunal for the two assessement years even though in its application the assessee desired that for the assessment year 1951-52, 13 questions ought to be referred to and for the assessment year 1952-53, three more questions should be referred to. After the reference was filed in this court the ...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Popatlal Gandhi Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR41(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to this court for our opinion in this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act 1953, runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the excess of the debts of the free estate of the deceased over the value of that estate amounting to Rs. 64,097 could be deducted from the value of property not forming part of the fee estate amounting to Rs. 2,57,603, representing the value of the insurance policies.' 2. The question relates to the estate duty assessment of the estate of late Shri Popatlal Hargovindas Gandhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). He died on 17th December, 1954. The applicant, his son, as the accountable person, filed a statement of account before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay. After the statement was scrutinised and after the applicant was duly heard, the Assistant Controller determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 2,57,603 and the estate duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanbhai Jinubhai Gavit Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ829
ORDERDighe, J.1. Petitioner Kishanbhai Jinubhai Gavit is convicted of the offence Under Section 279 I.P.C. as well as Under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rupees 500 i.d. R.I. for two months.2. According to the case for the prosecution, the petitioner was driving a bus No. GTA 4379, proceeding from Nasik to Balsad, in the evening of 22-4-1975. The bus was approaching a bus stop near Point Fata. Another bus had halted at the bus stop. There were two ladies by name Rajubai and Leelabai, walking by the left side of the road, interested in boarding the halted bus. In the' act of the stopping of the bus No. 4376 behind the already halted bus, the accused dashed against Rajubai, as a result of which she fell down. Although she did not suffer any visible external injury, she complained of pain in the back. A panchanama of the spot also discloses that a hawker in plantains sitting at the bottom of a neem tree nea...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad Narayan Nafade and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ830
ORDERDighe, J.1. This is an application in revision by the two original accused, convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., by the Assistant Judge, Jalgaon, whose conviction was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Dhulia.2. The petitioners are brothers, appellant No. 1 being the husband of complainant Chhabubai. Chhabubai belonged to village Ruikhede and is the daughter of one Shama Bombale. The appellants are the residents of village Shirsoli in Malkapur Taluka.3. According to the case for the prosecution, there was bickering between the husband and the wife, because the husband was in the habit of asking for money from his wife, who was expected to bring the same from her father. Some time immediately before the date of the incident viz., 4th July, 1&75, such a talk had started and although in the first place, the woman was reluctant to accede to her husband's request of going to her father but in the morning of 4th July 1975, she along with the husband and the husb...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant and ors. Vs. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom64; (1978)80BOMLR27
Vaidya, J.1. The main question arising, in the above First Appeal, filed by the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 79 of 1967, before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, is whether, under the Hindu Law in force in Kolhapur District, where the suit lands are situated, they were liable to be partitioned.2. The suit was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 making the following allegations in the plaint: Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are the sons of one Bapu Anna Patil, who died on Oct. 31, 1956. Plaintiffs Nos, 2, 3 and 4 are the eons of plaintiff No. 1, while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively son and grandson of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 Laxmibai is the sister of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No, 1.3. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Bapu Anna died as a member of the joint Hindu family and was acting as the Manager of the family till his death. It js further alleged that after the death of Bapu Anna, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 divided the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Ganpat Rai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR462(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference which has been made to this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether is any material, data or evidence on record in support of the findings of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and the sum of Rs. 1,40,000 (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) was income of the assessee from undisclosed source for the assessment year 1948-49 and 1949-50 respectively (2) Whether there is any material, data or evidence on record to support the finding of the Tribunal that the] sum of Rs. 70,000 (Rupees seventy thousand) was the income of the assessee from undisclosed source for the assessment year 1950-51 ?' 2. These questions arise out of the facts and circumstances which may be briefly stated : The assessee Messrs. Ram Lal Ganpat Rai is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Onkarmal, the karta, his two majo...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Anandrao Dake and anr. Vs. Vishwanath Ahilaji thembekar and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Bom1; 1978MhLJ30
1. This is plaintiffs' Appeal from Order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court directing their plaint to be returned to the proper court under Order. 7, Rule. 10 of C. P. C.2. A few facts that indicate the nature of the dispute may be noted. Originally the suit was filed by one Laxmibai widow of Anandrao Dake and her son Gajanan Anandrao Dake as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. Their case is that one Anandrao, the husband of original plaintiff No. 1 and father of original plaintiff No. 2, owned a Hair Cutting Saloon at Bombay Central and the tenancy in respect of the premises stood in the name of Anandrao. After the death of Anandrao the entire business including the tenancy right was inherited by Laxmibai and her son Gajanan. The two original plaintiffs had executed a document of conducting in favour of one K. Ramdas for a period of six years some time in the year 1952. While that contract was still running both of them executed an assignment-deed or sale-deed dated 1st March 1957for a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Khorshed M. Mistry and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR850(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The rule has been issued in relation to the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that tax on the capital gains is not attracted on the transfer of goodwill. We propose to dispose of this rule on a very marrow ground. It is the contention of the revenue that having regard to the indenture dated February 17, 1969, capital gain has accrued to the assessee and tax is leviable having regard to the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Under this indenture Maneck Pheroze Mistry, who is described as party of the first part, agreed with the other parties to this indenture that the goodwill of the firm as on March 31, 1967, was worth Rs. 1,50,000 and, the party of the first part was entitled to the same up to March 31, while the remaining parties to this indenture were entitled to the goodwill as and from April 1, 1967. It was the contention of the revenue that as the party of the first part was entitled to Rs. 1,50,000 the provision as regards tax on capital gain were attracted...
Tag this Judgment!Graham Trading Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR256(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, a limited company having income, inter alia, in India, United Kingdom and Pakistan the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether the double taxation relief in respect of super-tax on income taxed both in India and in U.K. is to be determined with reference to the total income of Rs. 3,73,117 or income as adjusted by excluding income of Rs. 1,19,220 referable to Pakistan of Rs. 2,53,897 ?' 2. At the outset we may state that the question is not very happily worded and we will indicate clearly having regard to the provisions of law how the amount of Indian super-tax for the purposes of assessment of the assessee is to be calculated. 3. The assessee is private limited company. For the assessment year 1946-47, for which the previous year is the year ended January 31, 1946, it was assessed in Indian a total income of Rs. 3,73,117. This amount of total income included income of Rs. 1,72,373 earned in U.K. Alt...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Dhanji Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1977
Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR721
Kania, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, direction or order directing the respondents to declare an award in respect of a plot of land situated at Kandivli, Bombay, and to pay to the petitioners the compensation payable under the award.2. The petitioners are the owners of a plot of land situated at Kandivli admeasuring approximately 3986.1 sq. mts. I propose to refer to this plot hereinafter as 'the said Plot'. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer (7), Bombay and Bombay Suburban District and respondent No. 3 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.3. There is no controversy as regards the material facts necessary for the disposal of this petition. Sometime prior to 1965 respondent No. 3 made a Development Plan for Greater Bombay and the same was sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra as far as the R-Ward is concerned. The said plot is situated in the R-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »