Mumbai Court February 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.
Pandharinath Sakharam Chavan Vs. Bhagwan Ramu Kate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom203; (1980)82BOMLR341; 1979MhLJ337
Naik, J.1. This writ petition raises an interesting question as to whether the heirs of a deceased tenant are entitled to the benefit of Sub-section (1B) of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The question arises on the following facts:3. One Rama Krishna Kate was the tenant of four agricultural lands situate at village Venegaon, Tahsil and district Satara. He was dispossessed by the landlord Raghunath Krishna Panchpor, after 15th June, 1955 and prior to 1st April, 1957.4. Sub-section (1B) of Section 32 of the Act was inserted by Section 2, Schedule of Maharashtra Act No. 49 of 1969, which came into force on 17th Oct., 1969. Prior to the coining into force of that sub-section, the tenant Ram Krishna had died. The Tahsildar started suo motu enquiry under Sub-section (1B) of Section 32 and directed restoration of the possession to the heirs of the deceased tenant Ramu Krishna Kate. That order was disturbed by the Assi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Baroda Investment Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR14(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN67(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The question which has been referred to us in this reference is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding section 104 of the Indian-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1962-63 was valid in law ?' 2. The assessment years in question are 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The shareholding of the several shareholders of the assessee-company have been found to be as follows : No. of shares1. Shri R. D. Birla 502. Smt. Sharda Devi Birla 503. Smt. Gopi Kumari Birla 504. Shri Ashok Vardhan Birla 505. Messrs. Assam Jute Supply Co. Ltd. 506. Messrs. Gwalior Webbing Co. Ltd. 2257. Messrs. Punjab Produce & Trading Co. Ltd. 36 -------- 511 --------3. The ITO having come to a finding, into the details of which we do not think it necessary to go, that the assessee-company was a company in which the public were not substantial...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Kaluram Puranmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)225; [1979]119ITR564(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN66(Bom)
Desai J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner and the following question of law has been referred to us under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no profit could arise on the transfer of 2,365 shares of Edward Textiles ltd. by the assessee-firm to its partner ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1958-59, the accounting year being Maru year 2013-14. The assessee before us is the firm of Messrs. Kaluram Puranmal. The said firm had sever partners and the constitution and the shares were as follows : Name of partners SharePurshottamlal 0-2-3Motilal 0-2-6Hariram 0-2-3Babulal 0-2-0Bannalal 0-2-6Basudeo 0-2-6Banwarilal 0-2-0 3. In the beginning of the accounting year the assessee sold 111 shares of Edward Textiles Ltd. though sharebrokers, M/s. Jamnadas Morarji, for a sum of Rs. 26,365. On this transaction a profit of Rs. 1,588 was realised....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Geigy International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)71; [1980]124ITR138(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN251(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred in this reference relates to the construction of rules in the Fifth Schedule to the I.T. Act, 1961, as they were in force and relevant for the assessment proceedings in the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee-company purchased the shares of an Indian company, Suhrid Geigy Ltd., which was engaged in an industry for the manufacture and production of dye-stuff. In assessment proceedings the assessee-company exemption from super-tax in respect of dividends received from the said Suhrid Geigy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian company'). These shares were purchased by the assessee some time in April, 1962, when the Indian company raised fresh capital and issued fresh shares. The claim of the assessee for exemption under s. 99(1)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at the material time, was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the condition in r. 2 of the Fifth Schedule in respect of fresh capital by public subscription has not been sat...
Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)1; [1979]119ITR590(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN422(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. Two questions are referred to us and they are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to have the carry forward of the business loss determined by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the return filed after the expiry of the period prescribed in the general notice issued under s. 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 192 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to have depreciation on the cost of rollers as revenue deduction ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar and having its factory at Ichalkaranji. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1960-61. Now, as far as question No. 1 is concerned, it appears to us to be unnecessary to set out the facts giving rise to this question inasmuch as both...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nauser K. Kanga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR404(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN147A(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, each of the joint holders of the property was entitled to self-occupation allowance under section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment of an individual, the assessment years being 1963-64 and 1964-65. The assessee had a one-third share in certain immovable property of which he was also in self-occupation. At the time of the original assessments while working out income from this property allowance was given on the basis that the same was self-occupied property. This was done for both the years. Thereafter, the ITO took proceedings under s. 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for both the years on the footing that the 'self-occupied property allowance' was allowed separately to all the occupants instead of restricting it proportionately. Although the assessee objected to the reassessment, the assessee's contentions, both on...
Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR561(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN420(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessment years in respect of which this reference has been made are 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The assessee-company was originally carrying on business in the manufacture of certain chemicals, particularly dichromate and its by-products. The business of the company had commenced from October 14, 1946, but the company stopped manufacturing chemicals in the year 1955 due to acute financial stringency. The assets of the company were mortgaged to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'finance corporation'). But the finance corporation refused to provide any further funds to the assessee from the middle of 1955. With the consent of the finance corporation, the premises of the company were leased to Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. in 1956 and 1958, though the assessee retained a portion of the premises for its own use and it kept its plant and machinery after it was dismantled from the premises which were let out to Colg...
Mangala Parashram Kelkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom282; 1979MhLJ599
ORDER1. The short but cardinal question around which the fate of the instant prosecution under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereafter briefly, the Act) ultimately revolves is whether a Buddhist is a member of a Scheduled Caste for the purposes of the said Act2. The prosecution case, abbreviated to essentials, is as follows:--On 4th March 1977 at about 7 p.m., there was at village Bhalavali in Ratnagiri District, a palanquin procession. After its completion, several villagers, including the complainant herein and others, gathered in front of the house of one Parasharam Kelkar, the father of accused Nos. 1 and 2, to witness the play before the said palanquin. Soon thereafter, Mangala and Nandakumar (accused Nos. 1 and 2) came out of the house and insulted the complainant and others of his community telling them that they had become Buddhists, had stopped playing bands, had instead started dancing before and watching the palanquin and they should, therefore, leav...
Khatau Vallabhdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Bom)121; [1979]119ITR846(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN60(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee was a partner in a firm known as Messrs. Vallabhdas Tejpal along with three other persons, namely, Chatrabhuj Vallabhdas, Dharamsey Khatau and Harendra Khatau. Harendra Khatau retired from the partnership with effect from 11th November, 1958, and the three other partners continued to be the partners of the firm. The three other partners, that is, the assessee, Chatrabhuj, and Dharamsey decided to dissolve the partnership and a deed of dissolution came to be made on 5th November, 1958, in which the assessee and Dharamsey came to be referred to as retiring partners and Chatrabhuj was referred to as a continuing partner. The relevant part of the said deed of dissolution is as follows : '... AND WHEREAS it has now been agreed between the parties hereto that the retiring partners shall also retire from the said partnership business as from Aso-Vad the 30th S. Y. 2014 and that the stock-in-trade of the said partnership be divided amongst the parties hereto in sp...
Hind Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-1
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)40; [1980]121ITR903(Bom)
Chandurkar J.1. The assessee-company, whose income was assessed during the assessment year 1958-59 at Rs. 99,565, was served with a notice under s. 18A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1922, whereby the ITO called upon the assessed to pay advance tax of Rs. 42,831 for the assessment year 1961-62, the accounting year being ending 31st December, 1960. The assessee instead of paying the advance tax filed an estimate disclosing a loss and thereby indicating that it was not liable to pay any advance tax. There is some confusion about the loss shown. In the statement of the case it is stated that the loss shown was Rs. 2,000 and in the order of the Tribunal the loss is stated to be Rs. 4,000. The assessment in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 was completed after the assessee filed a return declaring its income at Rs. 31,617 for the said year, The total income was, however, determined at Rs. 24,617. The ITO being of the view that the assessee had furnished an estimate of tax under s. 18A(2) which be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »