Mumbai Court June 1978 Judgments
Madhav Vithal Kudwa Vs. Madhavdas Vallabhdas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom49; 1979MhLJ193
1. The above first appeal raises an interesting point with regard to the right of a tenant of a flat in a building in Bombay governed by the BombayRents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to park his car in the compound of the building.2. The building in this case belongs to the plaintiffs, the Trustees of Murarji Goculdas Deoji Trust, situate at Kannedy Bridge, Bombay, and known as Murarji Goculdas Deoji Trust Building. The appellant, who was the defendant in the suit filed by the trustees, was the tenant in respect of Room No. 18 on the first floor of the said building for many years. In or about the month of Oct. 1968, the plaintiffs observed that the defendant was parking a car bearing No. BYH 1160 in the compound of the plaintiffs' building without the permission of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asked the defendant not to park the car or any vehicle in the compound without their permission. The defendant did not stop parking his car.3. The plaintiffs, therefore, add...
Tag this Judgment!K.T. Udeshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR542(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference the question referred to us to be found in the statement of the case is as follows : 'Whether the notice of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal was logically and validly served on the assessee ?' 2. The assessee before us had filed an appeal to the Tribunal from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner objecting to the addition of Rs. 2,000 in his total income as income from undisclosed sources. A certain address had been given in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal to which notice of hearing may be sent. The date of hearing of the appeal was fixed by the Tribunal on October 30, 1967, and the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post A.D. to the address given by him in the memo of appeal. The said notice seems to have been served on one Ajit Udeshi, who is the son of the assessee. However, at the hearing of the appeal no one was present on behalf of the assessee and the same was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal f...
Tag this Judgment!W.H. Brady and Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)221; [1979]119ITR359(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN505(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. The question in this reference relates to determination of capital gains realised by Messrs. W. H. Brady & Company Ltd., the assessee, on sale of 8,833 shares of New City of Bombay . (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The assessee is a public limited company doing business as managing agents. Between 1922 and 1941, the assessee had bought 670 shares of the company and the cost thereof was Rs. 1,33,146. In May, 1942, the assessee acquired further 670 shares as bonus shares by virtue of its possessing 670 shares. Between April 16, 1942, and April 30, 1946, the assessee bought further 765 shares of the company for the aggregate price of Rs. 3,22,252. After this purchase, on April 30, 1946, the total holding of the assessee consisted of 2,105 shares of the company. On the strength of that holding, on that day, it received another lot of 2,105 shares as bonus shares. Subsequently between April, 1946, and February, 1960, the assessee acquired further, 4,623 shares ...
Tag this Judgment!Joshi and Varma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)220; [1979]119ITR262(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, and the following questions has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was carrying on any business during the accounting year ended March 31, 1963, relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 within the meaning of section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm constituted of two partners both of which are joint stock companies, viz., (1) S. B. Joshi & Co. (P.) Ltd., and (2) Mangaldas N. Verma (P.) Ltd. The partnership between these two entities was specifically formed for the purpose of executing a contract for construction of an aqueduct across the river Parvati in Chambal Hydel and Irrigation Project in the State of Madhya Bharat. The business of the firm had actually commenced on November 1, 1954, though the partnership deed is one dated January 29, 1955. The partnership deed is annex.'A' to the statement of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Govind D. Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)254; [1980]122ITR604(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 with and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 44E were attracted ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55, the corresponding accounting periods being the financial years ending March, 1952, March, 1953, and March, 1954, respectively. The assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings for these years one of the questions that was raised pertains to the above questions. 3. The assessee and his wife were directors of a private limited company, called Bombay Chemicals Private Ltd. There were only nine shareholders, including the assessee and his wife. There were three employees at the material time by names M. B. Chitre, D. R. Ajgaonkar and B. J. Dandekar. They are on very intimate terms with the assessee. Chitre and Ajgaonkar were the classmates of the assessee for a long...
Tag this Judgment!Shri G.L. Methwani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR713
Naik, J.1. This petition raises the short question about the validity of the order of the President dated February 18, 1971, retrospectively withholding one-fourth of the pension which was already granted to the petitioner. The petitioner who was serving as a Superintendent of the Central Excise, retired from service on June 14, 1961. His pension was fixed at Rs. 190-25. On March 20, 1963, a departmental proceeding was instituted against him on the charge of his being guilty of grave misconduct, inasmuch as, although he had in fact purchased powerlooms after his retirement, he had purported to make it appear that the powerlooms were purchased in October 1960 by manipulating antedated receipts dated October 30, 1960, in a bid to take advantage of the liberalised rules, concerning the powerlooms, which were announced in November 1960. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of that grave misconduct and the President having accepted the said finding by his order dated November 11, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Radheshyam R. Morarka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1978
Reported in: [1981]127ITR111(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The assessee concerned is an individual. The assessment year in question is 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year 1958. The only point in dispute and which is concerned in the reference in the addition of two amounts of Rs. 33,860 and Rs. 35,063; these amounts represent the surplus realised by the assessee on two decrees purchased by him, in which decrees the judgment-debtors were the Kalyan Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad. This was a textile mill at Ahmedabad. At the relevant time, the assessee and his associates had substantial interest in the said Mills. It was ascertained by us from counsel for the revenue that the interest of the assessee and his associates was nearly 81% of the total shareholdings of the said company. The Kalyan Mills were indebted to several parties. Two of these creditors had obtained decrees aga...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Dalal Vs. Plastpeel Chemicals and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ409Bom
V.S. Deshpande, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as a Chemist on 23rd April, 1960 by the respondent No. 1 Company. He resigned from his job on 28th February, 1973 making it effective from 1st March, 1973. On the very date of his resignation, he made an application to his employer-respondent No. 1 for payment of Rs. 5,850 towards gratuity amount due to him for his 13 years' service. There was no response. He filed an application on 9th April, 1975 being Application No. (PGA) 145 of 1975 under S. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the 'Controlling Authority', respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 contested his claim on the grounds, amongst others, that the petitioner was not a workman and that there was no compliance with Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). 2. By his order dated 20th July, 1976, the respondent No. 2 adjudged the petitioner to be worker and that there was comp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Central Provinces Railway ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)247; [1979]119ITR161(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 assessment for the year 1959-60 could be validly reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Central Provinces Railway Company Limited, the assessee, is a public limited company managed by Killick Industries Ltd. The assessment in dispute is the reopening of the assessment under s. 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1959-60 and the corresponding previous year is the year ended September 30, 1958. The first assessment for the year was completed on July 23, 1959, on a total income Rs. 6,45,634. In arriving at this figure of total income, an amount of Rs. 270 was allowed as permissible deduction on account of interest payable by the assessee-company to its managing agents, Killick Industries Limited. 3. Some time in February, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Shahibag Entrepreneurs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(Bom)116; [1980]124ITR641(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment of M/s. Swastik Oil Mills Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The present respondent is the successor in law of the assessee. The assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling refined groundnut oil, hair oil, soap, detergent, etc. The relevant assessment year involved in this reference is 1961-62. The question which arose for determination before the revenue authorities was whether the assessee was entitled in that year to a relief under s. 49BB of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on the dividend of Rs. 1,82,250 declared by it for the financial year ended March 31, 1960. The relief claimed was on the footing the said dividend was wholly declared out of the profits already charged to income-tax before April 1, 1960. 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee paid a dividend at Rs. 6 per share aggregating to Rs. 1,82,250. The provision for the payment of dividend was mad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »