Mumbai Court February 1979 Judgments
Teksons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(Bom)314; [1979]120ITR745(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN150(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the following two questions have been referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 7,000 incurred by the appellant in preparing the playground for the workers and members of the staff was a revenue expense permissible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the moiety of the book profits were includible in the capital employed in the industrial undertaking in accordance with rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The second question stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year 1964-65 which was the subject-matter of Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1969 Teksons P. Ltd., v. CIT (No. 1) decided on 28th July, 1978 (since reported in : [1979]120ITR738(Bom) . An identical question referred for the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Bombay P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)4; [1980]121ITR142(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN143(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 in the reference the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether deduction of tax on inter-corporate dividends in the hands of the assessee has been properly allowed under the provisions of section 85A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company and we are concerned in the reference with the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee derived income from business, dividend and capital gains. The question arose of the relief available to the assessee-company under s. 85A. Section 85A reads as follows : '85A. Deduction of tax on inter-corporation dividends. - Where the total income of an assessee being a company included any income by way of dividends received by it from an Indian company or a company which has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends (including dividends on preference shares) within India, the...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Madanlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR364(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, Messrs, Brijlal Madanlal, is a firm which originally consisted of three partners, namely, Mandanlal Paliram, Kishorilal Fatechand and Anardevi, widow of Brijlal Paliram. With effect from 1st November, 1959, Anardevi retired from the firm and Madanlal and Kishorilal continued to be the continuing partners of the firm. By an instrument of partnership dated 6th April, 1960, the continuing partners are said to have admitted one Mrs. Chandrakaladevi Deviprasad, wife of Deviprasad Brijlal, in the partnership with effect from 1st November, 1959. An application for registration of the firm was made on 1st April, 1960, and a copy of the instrument of partnership was filed. 2. With a view to verify the genuineness of the new firm, the ITO wanted to examine the new partner, Chandrakaladevi, and he, therefore, issued a summons under s. 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961. She did not appear before the ITO on 2nd March, 1966, on which day she was summoned to appear. A letter, h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Mckenzies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR458(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN147(Bom)
Chandurkar J.1. The assessee derived income from various sources in the previous year which commenced from 1st of August, 1960, and ended on 31st July, 1961. The relevant assessment year for this previous year was 1962-63. The assessee was also a partner in the firm of 'M/s. McKenzies Ltd. & Oriental Timber Trading Corporation P. Ltd'. The previous year of the partnership firm was 1st September, 1960, to 31st August, 1961, and in the relevant assessment year 1962-63, after the income of the firm was assessed to tax, the assessee's share income from the firm for the said previous year, that is, 1st September, 1960, to 31st August, 1961, worked out to Rs. 1,47,378. In the assessment proceedings before the ITO, the assessee had contended that the share income from the firm accrued on 31st August, 1961, that is, after the close of the relevant accounting year of the assessee, on 31st July, 1961. Therefore, according to the assessee, the share income should be included in the assessment for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Dedia Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)247; [1980]122ITR110(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN432A(Bom)
Desai J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the following question of law stands referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 23A(1) of the Act was valid ?' 2. A few facts may be noted. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year involved in this reference is 1961-62. The short point involved is about the application of s. 23A(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The accounting year followed by the assessee-company was the calendar year. Though the assessee was liable to distribute a dividend to the extent of 65% of its total income, it did not declare anything during the relevant assessment year. However, it had declared more than 65% of its total income less taxes as dividend on February 26, 1962, which is beyond the accounting year of the company. Accordingly, the ITO issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Favre-leuba and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR897(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN419(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In his income-tax reference under S. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is made at the instance of the Commissioner, the following question of law has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income of Rs. 63,485 was assessable as business income or as income from other sources ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1966-67. The short point involved is whether the interest income earned by the assessee-company was assessable as business income or as income from other sources. The assessee-company was, at the relevant period, the sole agent for wall clocks and timepieces manufactured by another company, viz., Sifco Ltd. Under an agreement dated 28th June, 1962, between Sifco Ltd. and the assessee-company, the assessee-company was appointed the sole selling agent of Sifco Ltd., for the territories comprised in the Union of India. The duration of the said agreement was for five years. The other ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. British Drug Houses (In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)74; [1980]124ITR192(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN146(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner and we are concerned with several assessment years, viz., 1956-57 to 1961-62. The assessee in this case, according to the revenue, is an entity described as 'British Drug Houses (India) Private Ltd., and Allen & Hansburys Ltd.' The entity has been sought to be assessed in the status of a registered firm. 2. British Drug Houses (India) Private Ltd., Hereinafter referred to as 'B.D.H.', and Allen and Hansburys Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'A.& H.', entered into an agreement on December 15, 1954, for manufacturing injectible solutions of insulin in India from solid insulin purchased from U.K. A copy of the said agreement dated December 15, 1954, is to be found annexed to the statement of case as annex. 'A'. The joint manufacturing programme under the said agreement was being carried on, but B.D.H. and A.&H.; thereafter individually sold the stocks lifted by each of them and each of them accounted for the entire profit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR570(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN152(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53, the ITO made an order on November 23, 1956, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 26,72,720. While computing the tax payable by the assessee, the ITO gave a rebate of Rs. 78,372 in accordance with cl.(i) of the proviso to para. 3 of Pt. I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1951, which reads as follow : 'Where the total income, as reduced by seven annas in the rupee and by the amount, if any, exempt from income-tax exceeds the amount of any dividends (including dividends payable at a fixed rate) declared in respect of the whole or part of the previous year for the assessment for the year ending on March 31, 1952, and no order has been made under subsection (1) of section 23A of the Income-tax Act, a rebate shall be allowed at the rate of on the amount of such excess.' 2. In order to qualify for the rebate permitted to be given by the clause reproduced above, one of the conditions which w...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Saheb Vishwasrao Deore Vs. Parwatibai W/O Shankar Chavan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR332; 1980MhLJ586
R.A. Masodkar, J.1. This is an appeal of the original plaintiff, who filed the suit on the basis of agreement of sale (Exhibit 55) of January 17, 1963, seeking specific performance thereof and also praying for relief of declaration that the judgment and decree (Exhibits 38 and 39) of July 10, 1962 in Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 1962, obtained earlier, be declared to be collusive and as such not binding. The suit agreement is admittedly executed by defendant No. 1 Baburao. The judgment and decree which was questioned was obtained by defendant No. 2 Parwatibai against defendant No. 1 Baburao.2. The case of the plaintiff had been that Baburao was the owner of the property, being the suit house which was purchased by his father Dagadu under a registered deed of purchase of May 4, 1933 (Exhibit 50). After Dagadu's death, which occurred in July 1942, Baburao became the sole owner of the property. He had under Exhibit 56 initially agreed to convey this property to one Rajaram (P.W. 2), for a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Balraj Sahani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)33; [1979]119ITR36(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN33(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. This reference at the instance of the revenue made under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, arises out of the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1960-61. The original assessee, who is now represented by his legal representatives, was a well-known film artiste, who declared his total receipts at Rs. 1,07,002 from nine different pictures in the return of income filed by him on 27th July, 1960, for the accounting year ending 31st March, 1960. The total income returned included a sum of Rs. 14,000 in respect of a picture by name Chand produced by Tasviristan, which was a proprietary concern of one Kuldip Saigal, referred to by the Tribunal as 'Kuldip'. The written contract in respect of the picture Chand between the assessee and Kuldip was executed on 5th April, 1958, showing that Kuldip was to pay to the assessee a sum of Rs. 25,000 for his role in the picture. Rs. 1,000 was paid on that day and the balance of Rs. 24,000 was payable before the comple...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »