Mumbai Court March 1978 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.
Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)114; [1979]116ITR610(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question that has been referred to us for determination is concluded by the decision of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and the matter can be disposed of by a short order. Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd., the assessee-company, was incorporated on October 31, 1963. For the first year it closed its account on March 31, 1964. For the assessment year 1964-65, it filed its income-tax return on October 9, 1964, disclosing loss of Rs. 11,600. The ITO assessed the loss at Rs. 5,010, but refused to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return had not been filed within the time prescribed by s. 139(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In an appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO refusing to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return had not been filed within the time permitted by s. 139(3) of the Act. 2. In further appeal before the Tribunal, the view taken by the taxing authorities was affirmed relying upon the decision of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Arjan Khimji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)263; [1980]121ITR421(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN550(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, it was rightly held that the sum of Rs. 78,050 standing to the credit of Shree Nava Kapas and Rui Hedge Account did not represent any assessable income of the years under reference and was correctly carried forward and accounted for in the subsequent accounting year ?' 2. Arjan Khimji & Company, the assessee, is a partnership firm carrying on the wholesale cotton business and in effecting both ready and hedging transactions. The question referred to arises for the assessment year 1960-61, for which the relevant accounting year is S.Y. 2015. The assessee had two accounts in respect of the hedging transactions : (i) relating to profit or loss from hedging transactions pertaining to the year, and (ii) relating to the account styled as 'new Kapas and Rui and hedging account'. On the Diwali of S.Y. 2015 the latt...
C.A. Gulanikar, Income-tax Officer Vs. RamnaraIn Sons Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)74; [1979]119ITR83(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. This appeal can be disposed of by a short order, as the controversy between the parties is limited. 2. Ramnarain Sons Private Ltd., the petitioners, were assessed for the year 1949-50 by an order dated March 30, 1954. In the assessment order for the said year, certain amounts shown as losses in shares forward business and losses in cotton forward business relating to K. H. Jhunjhunwalla and P. H. Nerurkar were disallowed. In a revision preferred by the petitioners under s. 33A(2) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, certain negotiations took place and the assessment order was modified. The CIT by his order dated December 6, 1957, accepted the contention of the petitioners and allowed an amount of Rs. 14,66,720, which was included in the previous assessment order as a loss in speculation business. 3. Later on, assessment proceedings were taken up in respect of the income of Messrs. Ramdas Dossa & Company of Bombay, a firm carrying on business as a broker in cotton. In the co...
Madhukar Yeshwant Patankar and ors. Vs. Savleram Gotiram Teli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom117; (1978)80BOMLR529; 1978MhLJ844
1. The only question which arises in this petition filed on behalf of the landholders is whether an application under Section 32 (1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'), made by the heirs of the original tenant was maintainable.2. Field survey Nos. 88, 89 and 90 of Village Tryambak in Nasik Taluka admittedly were originally cultivated by one Savlaram Gotiram and, according to the landholders, the possession was taken by him after the end of the agricultural year 1954-55 while, according to the claimants the fields were cultivated by the original tenant during the agricultural year 1955-56. The original tenant died in 1959, Neither the original tenant during his lifetime nor the present respondents who are his heirs took any proceedings for being restored to possession of the fields in question until after the Tenancy Act came to be amended and a new provision was added in Section 32 as Subsection (1B) by Act No. 49 of 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›