Mumbai Court March 1978 Judgments
Rama Aba Singale and ors. Vs. Sumitrabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom14
1. The Appellant No. 1 is the husband and the Appellants Nos. 2 to 9 are the members of his family. They have filed the above First Appeal challenging the sale of the family property in execution of the decree, which the respondent No. 1, the wife of the appellant No. 1 had obtained against the appellant No. 1 for maintenance which the husband had failed to pay even after the decree. In execution of the decree the family property was sold to the auction purchaser--respondent No. 1, in Special Darkhast No. 8 of 1974. in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Bhir.2. The auction purchase took place on March 25, 1975; and instead of depositing the decretal amount and the other requiredamounts, within 30 days from the date of the sale, the appellant No. 1 made an application on May 3, 1975, Exh.; 8, staring that he had brought the amount, on April 25, 1975; but the Court staff was on strike, during the period from April 25, 1975 and was on strike even on that day; and he could not depos...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Joshi (H.U.F.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR11(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of sections 24(2)(ii) and 24(2)(iii), the assessee is entitled to set off the carried forward share of loss from Hind Vijay against the business income of the material year, and share income from Vijay Chitra Mandir ?'2. At the relevant time, pertaining to the assessment year 1959-60, the firm, Messrs. Vijay Chitra Mandir, Poona, was doing film exhibition business. This firm (hereinafter referred to as Chitra Mandir) had four partners till March 11, 1958, the assessee having one-fourth share. One of the partners died on March 11, 1958, and the surviving partners established a new firm in which the assessee had one-third share. For the material assessment year, one-third share of profits came to Rs. 10,692. 3. There was another firm by name Vijay Enterprises alias Hind Vijay at P...
Tag this Judgment!Union Bank of India Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas615(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner-Union Bank of India is a nationalised bank. The 1st respondent is the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay. The 2nd respondent is the Collector of Bombay for recovery of sales tax. The 3rd respondent is the presidency Magistrate, 16th court, Ballard Pier Bombay. The petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the notice of demand dated 11th August 1972, issued by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 10th March, 1972, passed by the 3rd respondent and a writ of mandamus restraining and prohibiting the respondent, their successors-in-office and their servants and agents from taking any further steps or proceedings. 2. A firm called Messrs. Pioneer Traders opened a current account with the petitioner-bank on 24th July, 1971, at its Bazaar Gate Street Branch, Bombay. One L. M. Jhaveri represented himself to be the proprietor of Messrs. Pioneer Traders, to the petitioner-bank for the purpose of opening the said account No. 226045. The said L. M. J...
Tag this Judgment!Kisanrao Madhavrao Bartakke Vs. Narayan Dhondi Shete
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom74; (1978)80BOMLR676; 1978MhLJ859
Deshmukh, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by theoriginal tenant-defendant in a litigation arising under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Home Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The learned Single Judge who heard this petition felt that there is an apparent conflict between the two judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court with regard to the requirement of framing an issue under the latter part of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Rent Act. Hence by a reasoned order the learned Judge referred the issue to a larger Bench. However, since the matter appears to be a small one, the learned Chief Justice hag marked the entire petition for being disposed of by this Bench. Hence we have heard the parties on the question referred to us as well as on the general merits of the petition. This is a usual litigation between a landlord and a tenant.2. The tenanted premises are two rooms, one facing...
Tag this Judgment!Teksons Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii (N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)249; [1979]120ITR738(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred to us reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the moiety of the book profits were includible in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking having regard to rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing radiators, fuel engines, etc., for automobiles. We are concerned n this reference with the assessment year 1964-65. In the assessment the assessee claimed relief under of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO computed the capital employed at Rs. 27,25,755 and 6% of the said amount worked out to Rs. 1,63,545; this was the eligible relief as determined by the ITO. 3. The assessee carried the matter to the AAC and in this appeal there were other points in dispute. Before the AAC an additional ground was raised and it was urged that the ITO had err...
Tag this Judgment!Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR493(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. Shrimant Padmaraje R. Kadambande, the assessee, is the daughter and the only child of late H. H. Chhatrapati Rajaram Maharaj, a ruling chief of the erstwhile Indian State of Kolhapur. Under the Huzur Order dated April 8, 1947, passed by his successor, H. H. Shahu Chhatrapati Maharaj, the assessee was granted a cash allowance of Rs. 3,000 per month from April 1, 1947. After the merger of the Kolhapur State in the then Bombay State, the allowance was continued for some time up to July 31, 1955. Thereafter, it was discontinued in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The discontinuance of the said allowance was communicated to the assessee by the District Treasury Officer, Kolhapur, by his letter bearing No. WS-XXI-53 dated April 14, 1956. The Act provided for a similar cash allowance being paid as per the provisions of s. 15 of the Act. The assessee continued ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii, Bombay Vs. Bank of India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR809(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, although an additional question at the instance of the assessee also stands referred to us. 2. The assessee is a well-known bank doing banking business. While assessing the assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65, it was found by the ITO that the assessee had claimed development rebate as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------------Safe deposit locker Electrical installations.cabinets.----------------------------------------------------------------------Rs. Rs.1962-63 2,04,791 65,5381963-64 2,45,146 91,9381964-65 1,78,712 1,22,502--------- ----------6,23,649 2,79,978--------- ----------- 3. The view of the ITO was that safe deposit lockers were at best a special type of cupboard and could not be considered as plant for purposes of development rebate or depreciation. As far as electrical installations were concerned, he observed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Surat Cotton Spinning an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)234; [1979]118ITR746(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference made at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to us : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost allowable to the assessee-company in computing the capital loss in respect of the 22,500 shares of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. should be Rs. 5,60,625 or Rs. 6,73,125 or any other amount (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital gains and profits under section 41(2) in respect of the sale of machinery should have been determined at Rs. 54,219 and Rs. 33,939, respectively, as returned by the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is a company and we are concerned with the assessment year 1962-63, the relevant accounting year being the year ended 31st December, 1961. Prior to 1956 there were two private limited companies, viz., Maharani Shri Khalsabai Cotton Mills (Private) Ltd. of Dewas and Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Murlidhar Chiranjilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)204; [1980]121ITR528(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,750 imposed by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. Murlidhar Chiranjilal, the assessee, is firm doing business in woollen yarn at Bombay, Ludhiana, Amritsar, etc. On going through the accounts relevant for the material assessment, namely, assessment year 1956-57, the ITO found that on June 25, 1955, the assessee had a stock of 8, 189 lbs. of yarn valued at Rs. 72,919-10-0 in the Ludhiana branch. This was as per the stock book of that branch. The ITO, it appears, had obtained information that on the same date, viz., June 25, 1955, the assessee had pledged 76 bales of yarn valued at Rs. 1,28,175 with the Ludhiana branch of the Punjab National Bank for securing an overdraft. This information was obtained from the bank. According to the ITO, each bal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Suppl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR288(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in generating and supplying electric power. For the purposes of storage of water it had, inter alia, two dams, Walawhan Dam and Shirawata Dam. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee spent Rs. 14,81,124 on anchoring of Walawhan Dam by the Coyne method and Rs. 29,87,802 on cement grouting of Shirawata Dam. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee spent Rs. 47,151 and Rs. 23 lakhs on the cement grouting and improvement to Shirawata Dam by the Coyne method. A question arose, whether the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on these amounts spent for the two years referred to above. 2. The contention, on behalf of the assessee, before the ITO was that the two dams were designed and constructed between the years 1911 and 1916. The design criteria and construction practices adopted were those then in vogue. The design...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »