Mumbai Court March 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. BasseIn Electric Supply ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR885(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred to us by the Tribunal reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the written down value of the assessee's assets and the actual cost thereof should be taken as per the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and not as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1965-66, for which the accounting year is the financial year ended 31st March, 1965. In respect of the assessment made on the assessee under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the written down value of the various assets was determined in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. When the I.T. Act, 1961, came into operation as from the assessment year 1962-63, the written down value of the assets was taken as per the calculations made under the old Act and depreciati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Vissionji and Co., (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)243; [1981]127ITR827(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 assessee was a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the dealing in or holding of investments, for purpose of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (assessment year 1961-62) and section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (assessment year 1962-63 to 1964-65) ?' 2. Vissonji sons & company private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was incorporated in the year 1945. Prior thereto there was a firm called M/s. Vissonji Sons & Company, and the business carried on by that firm was taken over by the company. Amongst the objects for which the company was incorporated were the following : (a) to acquire from Messrs. Vissonji Sons and Company :- (1) the business carried on by the said firm as managing agents of Wallace Flour Mills Ltd., (2) the factories owned by the said firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Rajaram Wani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR356; 1978MhLJ679
Naik, J.1. This revision application raises an interesting point of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It arises under the following circumstances : The first two revision petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of a firm called 'M/s. Avinash Narayan and Co.' revision petitioner No. 3-original accused No. 3, carrying on business in grocery at Dhule. The food inspector of Dhule Municipal council went to the said shop on November 29, 1975 and he purchased 600 gms. of eliachi for analysis. The sample was sent to the public analyst, Poona. The public analyst as appears from his report was of opinion that the sample contained volatile oil v/w less than 1.0 per cent, and that it did not conform to the standards of Badi eliachi seeds as per the Rules under the Act and, it was, therefore, adulterated. It is on these facts that the accused were prosecuted for an offence under Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954....
Tag this Judgment!Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Poona Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom214
Deshpande, J.1. The Controller of stores, Central Railway, Bombay had to dispose of scrap steel rails lying at various stations in Bombay and Solapur Divisions in the then Central Railway. Tenders were invited and the tender of the appellant M/s Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. was accepted ultimately on 23-7-1966. A certain dispute is to delivery of the goods arose between them and the same was referred in accordance with the agreement to a high ranking Railway Officer as a sole arbitrator on 12-11-1971. He delivered his award on 15-5-1972- The Respondent is directed thereunder to deliver 1567 (MT) of the scrap in terms of the contract and refund of Rs. 4187 to the appellant.2. The appellant thereafter filed Spl. Suit No. 252 of 1975 against the Respondent, the owner of Railways on 21-8-1972 before Civil Judge, Sr. Divn; Poona claiming a decree in terms of the award under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, The Respondent also filed Misc. Application No. 632 of 1972 for setting aside t...
Tag this Judgment!The Sangli City Municipal Council Vs. Sheshyappa Bala Bolaj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom99; (1978)80BOMLR534
1. The above Second Appeal arises out of a suit on behalf of the Lingayat Veershaiva Samaj of the Sangli Town, and raises an important question as to whether the Sangli City Municipality could be permanently restrained from constructing a road measuring 20 x 300 feet within the limits of the suit burial land, bearing R. S. No. 564, on its southern boundary, in exercise of its powers under the law under which it was constituted.2. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs belonging to the Lingayat Community of Sangli City, under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not disputed that the Lingayat Samaj or Veershaiva Samaj was using the suit burial ground bearing R. S. No. 564,situated at Sangli. The land is entered in the record of rights as a burial ground (Masanvati). It is also not disputed that in the said burial ground Lingayat Community of Sangli bury the corpses of the dead members of the community and perform the funeral rites. There are also tombs and ...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Neterwalla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR880(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1957-58, the accounting year being the financial year 1956-57. The assessee is a civil engineer who was for some time engaged in the execution of civil works and military contracts. From September, 1946, however, he stopped all such activities and thereafter took up appointment as director and manager of Western India Theatres Ltd. He was a wholetime director of the said company till September 30, 1 956; on this date he gave up that appointment with a view to work for a new concern proposed to be formed, viz., Cambata Ferro-Manganese Private Ltd., two private companies, viz., Messrs. Cambata Industries Private Ltd., and Messrs. Shavax C. Cambata Private Ltd., had obtained permission from the Government to put up a ferro-manganese plant under a licence dated October 18, 1954, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Oil Mill Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR813(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This reference has been made at the instance of the assessee against the order passed by the taxing authorities as well as the Tribunal refusing to grant registration to the firm. 2. Arun Oil Mill, the assessee-firm was reconstituted by a deed dated November 16,1959. According to the partnership deed, there were seven partners and one minor one minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. One of the partners, Abhaykumar, was out of India and the partnership deed was signed on his behalf by Motichand, who was also a partner in the firm. The assessment year in question is 1961-62 for which the corresponding previous year is S. Y. 2016 (accounting period ended on October 28, 1960). On September 12, 1960, an application for registration of the reconstituted firm was filed. This application was signed by all the partners, except Abhaykumar and the minor. On behalf of Abhaykumar, Motichand had signed the application as the person holding his general power-of-attor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Vishnudayal Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR140(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions are referred to us for our determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that the amount of Rs. 15,083 or part thereof received by the assessee was a part of the consideration of the sale and was not revenue receipt (2) Whether the amount of the Rs. 10,241 was rightly held to be not assessable in the assessment year 1960-61 ?' 2. Assessee, Vishnudayal Dwarkadas, a HUF, was partner in the firm carrying on business and on dissolution of the said firm, the assessee received certain movable and immovable properties, being agricultural properties. On January 25, 1959, the assessee executed a sale deed for sale of certain agricultural properties to one Rajendrakumar for the price of Rs. 2,28,442. Under the sale deed, the assessee received the full price; he also received interest at the rate of 6 3/4% from May 1, 1958, on the sale price till the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Mangesh J. Sanzgiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)77; [1979]119ITR962(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN120(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred to us for our determination : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the mode of computation of capital gains in the company's assessment has no bearing in deciding whether the shareholder has received any dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(c) of the Act was incorrect (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the liability to pay tax by the shareholder is co-extensive with the liability of the company to pay capital gains ta (iii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that capital profits made by a company and distributed by the liquidator are assessable as dividends only to the extent that the capital profits give rise to capital gains assessable as suc ?' 2. The questions above referred to arise out of two appeals of two brothers, which we...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Modella P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)288; [1980]123ITR677(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference the following two questions have been referred to the High Court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 210(2) was invalid (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was liable to be cancelled ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company doing business as managing agents. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1965-66, the corresponding previous year being the year ended March 31, 1965. The order which was ultimately given rise to this reference was an order levying a penalty of Rs. 30,000 (reduced by the AAC to Rs. 20,000) under s. 221(1) of the I.T. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »