Mumbai Court January 1979 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay-i Vs. SuessIn Textiles, Ball Bearin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR45(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN294(Bom)
Chandurkar J.1. The assessee had for the purpose of his business taken on lease a portion of the Bank of Baroda buildings and a portion of the Laxmi Woollen Mills Estate. Both these premises were used earlier by other persons for the purposes of business. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee claimed partial exemption from income-tax under s. 15C of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The ITO rejected this claim on the ground that the new industrial undertaking was formed by transfer to the new business of buildings which were used in any other business. 2. In appeal the order of the ITO was set aside by the AAC and, therefore, the revenue challenged the order of the AAC before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that two requirements had to be satisfied before an assessee could claim partial exemption under s. 15C of the Act. The first requirement, according to the Tribunal, was that the building used by the assessee had to be sho...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Sawyer's Asia Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(Bom)285; [1980]122ITR259(Bom)
Desai J.1. In this reference the two questions which are referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 9,000 out of the remuneration of Rs. 18,000 paid to Shri S. A. Patel could be disallowed in view of the provisions of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 ?' 2. In order to understand the rival contentions a few facts may be stated : The assessee is a limited company, manufacturing a popular educational toy called 'view-masters'. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1063-64, the corresponding provisions year being the calendar year 1962. 3. The managing director of the assessee-company, one S. A. Patel, was paid the total remuneration of Rs. 18,000 by the company. Of this remuneration, the ITO disallowed Rs. 9,000 in the following circum...
Vithaldas Vallabhdas Vaishnav Vs. Kohinoor Mills Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: [1979(38)FLR179]; (1979)IILLJ24Bom; 1979MhLJ420
V.S. Deshpande 1. The petitioner was employed as a storekeeper in the respondent No. I mill since 21-9-1949. His services came to be terminated with effect from 1-10-1973 on the ground of loss of confidence. The petitioner approached the employer for reinstatement through advocate's notices dated 4-10-1973, 8-10-1973 and 31-10-1973. He also made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 12-11-1973 to the same effect. He then filed the present application for reinstatement and back wages before the Labour Court on 4-6-1974 under S. 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The employer resisted his claim on the ground, among others, that the same was not maintainable being barred by limitation. The issue of limitation was tried as a preliminary issue at the instance of the employer. The Labour Court upheld that the contention of the employer, holding that the application dated 4-6-1974 was beyond three months and 15 days afte...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Bombay State Transport ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)238; [1979]118ITR399(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN282(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference which is at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the following three questions are referred to the High Court for its opinion : '(1) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 11,712 on account of contribution to the insurance fund against third party risk (2) Whether it was rightly held that there was a clear conflict between the substantive section of the Act, viz., section 10(2) (vi) and rule 8 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922 (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation of Rs. 2,80,363 for the period April 1, 1960, to April 30,1960, in respect of assets transferred to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, Mr. Joshi who appears for the Commissioner has drawn our attention to a decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1966 (decided by Kantawala C.J. and Tulzapurkar J. on Au...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Hickson and Dadajee Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR368(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN296(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the two questions which are referred to us are as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment was validly reopened under section 148 read with section 147(b) (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the company was entitled to the relief under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. The two questions arise from the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the three assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. As the Tribunal upheld the submissions made on behalf of the assessee for all these three years, the Commissioner wanted a reference for all the three years, but reference was refused for the first two years, i.e., for assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, and the two questions were referred only for the third of the said years, viz., 1959-60. The relevant ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Pressure Pilling Co. (I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]126ITR333(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN406(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in which the following question has been referred at the instance of the revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was engaged in the 'manufacture' or 'production of articles' within the meaning of section 84(2)(iii) and hence was entitled to relief under section 84(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year year 1963-64, and relief under section 84(1) and section 101 for the assessment year 1964-65 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company doing the business of laying foundations of buildings by a specialised patented method known as 'pressure piling'. The process has been described as follows in the statement of case. 'Pressure piles are cast in site and piles are formed in bore holes previously excavated by suitable plant at each pile position. The boring are sunk to suitable bearing stratum and...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Ginners and Pressers P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)233; [1981]130ITR398(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN295(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference arises out of orders made under s. 23A of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment years 1953-54 and 1955-56. The question which has been referred at the instance of the revenue is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 23A (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1955-56 were valid ?' 2. The assessee-company which is a private limited company and was promoted by the parent company, M/s. Kilachand Devchand and Co. Ltd., which holds 100% shares of the assessee-company, took over some oil and ginning mills, factories and lands belonging to and used in its business by the parent company. The assets were taken over at a cost of Rs. 13,50,000 though the written down value of these assets as per the income-tax records of this company just before the transfer was only Rs. 2,21,142. The original cost of purchase to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Great Eastern Shipping C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)16; [1979]118ITR772(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner from the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 12991 of 1965-65. The reference is under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. 2. The assessee-company is a public limited company owning a number of ships. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1960-61. Whilst scrutinising the assessment of the assessee for this year, the ITO noticed that the travelling expenses claimed by the company included various expenses of directors and their relations for trips to foreign countries which were in connection with acquisition and launching of new ships. In his order, the ITO observed that necessary details were not available for the expenses in the aggregate amount of Rs. 56,000. These expenses were as follows : (a) Expenses incurred by Mrs. V.J. Sheth (wife Rs.of the director) in U.K. and Continent in connectionwith acquisition of new ships (November 4, 1958,to December 10, 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Pitty Bros. Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)51; [1979]120ITR709(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arising from the decision of the Tribunal dated 14th May, 1968, in Income-tax Appeal :No. 15827 of 1966-67 a few facts may be stated : We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1964-65, for which the accounting year is the year ended 31st August, 1963. The assessee is a private limited company which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the assessee-company ' It carries on several types of business and activities, but one of these is share-dealing. On 31st August, 1954, the assessee-company purchased 900 shares of Hind Tobacco & Cigarette Co. Ltd., which company will be hereinafter referred to as 'the tobacco company '. The tobacco company was established in 1951, and of its 10,934 equity shares, Pannalal Bansilal Pittie and his two sons, Badrivishal and Laxmilal, held 1,715 shares each, all the three between them held in all 5,145 shares. Although the tobacco comp...
Ramchandra Lalbhai Banker (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR704A(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, profits arising out of the transactions of Lal Mills with certain parties should be assessed in the hands of Shri Ramchandra Lalbhai as an individual or they should be assessed in the hands of the HUF of which Shri Ramchandra Lalbhai was the karta, for the assessment year 1944-45, chargeable accounting period ending 31-3-1944 and assessment year 1947-48 ?' 2. We need state only the material facts which are relevant for the purpose of considering the above question. The assessee was a HUF consisting at the material time of one Ramchandra Lalbhai Banker, his wife and his son. The family held 350 shares in a private limited company called Chinubhai Lalbhai & Brothers Ltd. (referred to hereafter as the 'Managing Agency Co.'). The other shareholders in the company were Chinubahi Lalbhai, that is, brother of Ramchandra Lalbhai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »