Mumbai Court March 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Kantilal Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR647(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference, we are concerned with Mrs. Vimla Kantilal Shah, an individual, and the assessment year is 1960-61. For this assessment year, the relevant accounting period in respect of income from Natson Manufacturing Company is the year ended 30th September, 1959, and in respect of the income under the head 'Income from other sources' is the calendar year ended 31st March, 1960. Natson Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'Natsons') is a firm consisting of two partners, A.N. Shah and N. C. shah, which firm was in need of finance and accordingly an agreement dated 7th March, 1958, was entered into between the firm and the assessee. Under the said agreement, a copy whereof is to be found as annexure 'A' to the statement of case, the assessee agreed to advance capital to the said firm for the purpose of its business and development to the extent of rupees one lakh. Clause 3 of the said agreement provided that in consideration of such advance, the firm was to give...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Hind Co-op. Housing Society Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1978
Reported in: (1983)3ITD625(Mum.)
1. The appellant Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. is said to be one of the 14 co-operative housing societies which were allotted various plots of land by the Housing Board in Juhu-Vile Parle area on lease. The society in its turn gave lease of the plots, excepting one plot reserved for its own use, to members for periods which were short of one year of the period for which the society itself had the lease from the Housing Board. It is also further stated that the society charged from the members the same amount for the lease as itself was charged. The object of the society, as stated in its bye-laws, is to carry on the trade of building and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with co-operative principles and to establish and carry on social, recreative and educational work (in connection with its tenants). The regulations of the society relating to lease to be granted by it to members desiring to purchase the houses are set out in pages 23 an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Ralliwolf Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)129; [1980]121ITR262(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. At the instance of the revenue under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, this court directed the Tribunal to refer the following question for determination by the High Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision as to the assessee's claim in respect of the amount of Rs. 1,31,356, claimed as revenue expenditure, during the assessment year is correct or not ?' 2. After hearing this reference, we find that the question that has been directed to be referred to this court is required to be framed as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had set up its business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61 was perverse or based on no evidence ?' 3. It is this question that we propose to deal with. 4. A company by name Wolf Electric Tools (Holdings) Ltd., incorporated in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.K. compan...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Jayantilal L. Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom12; (1978)80BOMLR393; 1979MhLJ411
Kantawala, C.J.1. The facts of this appeal should only be shortly stated, as we propose to dispose of the same only on one point, viz, the bar of limitation.2. It is the case of the appellants Trustees of the Port of Bombay that the consignment of 629 coil wire shorts arrived at Bombay by s. s. 'Indian Reliance' on or about October 7, 1960 at Alexandra Docks. The respondents were the consignees of the said consignment. They failed and neglected to take delivery of the said goods within seven day a from the date of landing, as provided under Section 61-A (2) of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the goods were not cleared, they were stored in uncleared warehouse.3. By an order dated December 5, 1960, the Collector of Customs Bombay, confiscated the said consignment, and a copy of the said order was sent to the appellants. It appears, later on, on December 5, 1961, the appellants were advised by the Customs Inspector that only 167 coils were under ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rukminibai Haribhau Ghodke and ors. Vs. Narhar Tukaram Mudgal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom121; (1978)80BOMLR479
ORDER1. One Haribhau Bhimrao Ghodke was the landlord of a building situated at village Pandharpur in Solapur district. One Saraswatibai Narhar Mudgal was his tenant. Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 1969 was filed by Haribhau Bhimrao against the said Saraswatibai for possession of the premises leased to her on the ground, amongst others, that the landlord required the same bona fide and reasonably for his own use and occupation. Pending the suit Saraswatibai died and her legal representative, the present respondent, was brought on record.2. By his judgment and order dated 14th Dec. 1971 the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding, among other things, that the notice by which the landlord had terminated the tenancy of Saraswatibai was invalid. The landlord preferred an appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1972, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Solapur by his judgment and order dated 9th Aug. 1973. The learned Appellate Judge concurred with the vie...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rao, Official Liquidator Vs. Jyoti Associates
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas27(Bom)
Bharucha, J. 1. The applicants are the landlords of certain premises of which the company in liquidation was the tenant. The tenancy was terminated and suits for ejectment were filed in the Small Causes Court. On 21st August, 1970, the company was ordered to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed liquidator of the company. On 28th December, 1972, the official liquidator, upon the directions of the company judge, granted to the respondent leave and licence to use the greater part of the said premises (hereinafter called 'the licenced premises') for industrial and commercial purposes, including warehousing and storage of goods belonging to her and to her customers and clients and for ancillary purposes. The agreement was for 5 years. On 27th June, 1977, after the company court's directions had been obtained, a fresh agreement was entered into between the official liquidator and the respondent in similar terms. 2. Clauses 6, 9, 14, 18 and 20 of the said agreements read as u...
Tag this Judgment!Sadabai and anr. Vs. A. Nivrutti Vithoba Takale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom29; (1978)80BOMLR422; 1979MhLJ55
1. The short point arising in the above second Appeal, is whether the appellants-decree-holders were entitled to recover mesne profits from the date of the suit (April 25, 1957) to the date of the decree (March 28, 1963), which was negatived by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, on January 15, 1974, confirming an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat, on July 8, 1971, in Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 1967, filed by the appellants for determining the mesne profits under the decree.2. The two Courts below purported to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in C. Subanna v. K. Subanna, : [1965]2SCR661 , where it was laid down that Order 20, Rule 12, does not empower a Court to direct an enquiry and pass a final decree with respect to mesne profits for a period exceeding three years from the date of decree.3. The Rule was thereafter amended by this Court on November l, 1966; and Order 20, Rule 12, so far as this Court is concerned, reads as follows :--'12...
Tag this Judgment!Fortune Films International Vs. Dev Anand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom17; (1978)80BOMLR263
Desai, J.1. This appeal is from the order of Gadgil J. dated 3rd January 1978 made on the plaintiff's Notice of Motion, dated 15th December 1977. By the said order the learned single Judge confirmed the ad-interim injunction already granted, as he was of the opinion that the terms of Exhibit 'A' to the plaint, particularly paragraph 7, was prima facie in the plaintiff's favour. He rejected the defence contention that Exhibit 'B' amounted to a novatio and in his view the same appeared only to change in the mode of payment. The respective arguments as to copyright were not considered at that stage.2. In this view of the matter the learned single Judge confirmed in favour of the plaintiff the substantial reliefs which the plaintiff had already obtained at the ad-interim stage; and it is the 1st defendants, who, being aggrieved by the said order, have preferred this appeal.3. Before setting out the facts shortly, it may be stated that on 27th February 1978 we heard fairly detailed argument...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. United Wire Ropes Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR762(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the following two questions have been referred to us under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner : '(1) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the transaction of earning interest was connected with the transaction of paying interest (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 1,77,741 against the interest income of Rs. 86,910 ?' 2. The facts are within a narrow compass and may be briefly stated : The assessee is a limited company and we are concerned with the assessment year 1963-64, the accounting year being the year ended 31st March, 1963. For this period the assessee showed a loss of Rs. 6,921 and this was on the footing of claiming certain expenses incurred by the assessee during the year. The ITO, however, rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the business of the assessee was that of manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Globe theatres Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)134; [1980]122ITR240(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. We are concerned in the reference with the assessment year 1961-62, the corresponding previous year being the year ended September 30, 1960. The assessee is a private limited company having the business of running cinemas. It is admittedly a closely held company. Unit March 31, 1958, it was managed by a firm of managing agents, viz., M/s. Kooka Sidhwa & Co. There were two partners of the said managing agency firm, viz. Kaikhushroo A. Kooka and Framji H. Sidhwa. Both the partners were substantial shareholders in the assessee-company also. Under the managing agency agreement, the managing agents were entitled to a commission at the rate of 10% on the net profits of the company. In addition to such commission the partners of the managing agency firm were also drawing remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month each. An agreement dated March 31, 1958, was made between these two partners and three others, two of them being the sons of Framji and the third one being the son ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »