Mumbai Court March 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.
Laxman Vithal Rewankar Vs. Rajaram Narayan Pohurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Bom305; 1980MhLJ627
ORDER1. The question which arises for decision in this Revision Application is whether a finding recorded by Rent Controller in proceedings under C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), to the effect that the tenant is not in arrears of rent operates as res judicata in a civil suit subsequently filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovering rent for the same period. This question arises in the following circumstances.2. The non-applicant owns a room which is the subject matter of this litigation. He had let it out to the applicant at the monthly rental of Rs. 10/-. In 1970 the non-applicant made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13 (3) (i) and (ii) of the Order for permission to serve a notice on the applicant determining his lease on the ground that the applicant was in arrears of rent for an aggregate period of three months and that he washabitually in arrears of rent It appears in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Usha D. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1979
Reported in: [1981]127ITR850(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN154(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference arises out of assessment proceedings under the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessee in this case was also the assessee in W.T. Reference No. 23 of 1971 which we have decided to-day. It is not necessary for us to set out again all the relevant facts in this reference. the assessee in the relevant assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, filed returns in response to a notice under s. 143(2) showing her income as follows : Rs.Assessment year 1961-62 3,589Assessment year 1962-63 5,423Assessment year 1963-64 6,070 2. In the course of these assessments, all of which were made after August 16, 1963, which is the date on which the compromise between the assessee and other members of the family has taken place, by virtue of which the assessee received Rs. 10,70,000 in full satisfaction of her claim as the widow of the deceased, Dinesh, the ito sought to add one-sixth share of the income arising from the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Rawji Amarsi and Sons I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR112(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN251A(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee-company against whom an order under s. 23(A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, has been made for the assessment year 1961-62 was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,58,257. The income assessed included an amount of Rs. 75,744 which, according to the assessee, was the half share of the income of the joint venture between the assessee-company and one Naraindas Bhimji in respect of transactions of cloves and ivory in the accounting year ending 31st December, 1960. Before the ITO, the assessee had agreed that the amount of Rs. 75,744 which was shown by the assessee in the accounts as being due to be paid to Naraindas Bhimji should be included as a part of the assessee's income. The ITO after deducting Rs. 71,216 on account of income-tax and super-tax in respect of the assessed income found that the balance came to Rs. 87,041. The assessee should have distributed Rs. 56,577 as dividend, according to the ITO, in order to avoid application of the provisions of s. 23...
Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR497(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN441(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is Prakash Cotton Mills Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee-company', and we are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1966-67, for which the previous year was the one ended on 31st March, 1965. for the said assessment year, the ITO by his notice of demand dated 25th May, 1965, which was served on the assessee-company on 31st May, 1965, called upon the assessee-company to pay (on the basis of regular assessment for the year 1960-61) advance tax of Rs. 33,35,954 in four equal installments on or before 1st June, 1965, 1st September, 1965, 1st December, 1965, and 1st March, 1966, respectively. The assessee-company did not pay the first installment which was in the sum of Rs. 8,33,988.65 by the specified due date, viz., 1st June, 1965. Accordingly, the ITO issued a show cause notice to the assessee-company under s. 221(1) of the I.T. Act, 196...
National Non-ferrous Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR130(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN140(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, from the order of the Tribunal dated 7th December, 1968, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 18810 and 18811 of 1966-67. We are concerned with two assessment years, viz., 1962-63 and 1963-64. The question lies within a very narrow compass. It appears that as from 1st January, 1946, there was a firm consisting of four partners Bulakhidas Bhailalbhai Patel, Gordhanbhai Bhailalbhai Patel, Haridas Vaghjibhai Patel, and Nagjibhai Bhailalbhai Patel. The business of the partnership was as manufacturers and founders of non-ferrous alloys. On 13th December, 1953, Negjibhai Patel died and under an indenture of partnership dated 30th March, 1954, a fresh partnership came into being which was between Bulakhidas, Gordhanbhai and Haridas, the three surviving partners of the erstwhile firm and the 4th partner of this second partnership, as we may call it, was Chandrakant, son of Nagjibhai Patel. This partner...
Vyankatrao Khushalrao Sawarkar Vs. Pandurang Janbaji Gurao and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom194; 1980MhLJ487
ORDER1. The question which arises for consideration in this revision application is whether ex parte decree passed by the Court of Small Causes merges in the order passed by the High Court summarily dismissing a revision application filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Non-applicant No. 1 had filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur against the Applicant and non-applicant No. 2 for ejectment and recovery of rent. The defendant in the suit did not appear and hence an ex parte decree was passed against both of them on 2nd October, 1975. The applicant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. He also preferred a revision application in this Court under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. That revision application was dismissed summarily by this Court. The applicant, therefore, proceeded with his a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii Vs. Hansa Agencies
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR147(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN122(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference we are concerned with two assessees, but the question referred to us is a common question and does not depend for its answer on the various facts involved in the assessments of the two assessees before us. The common question referred to us for out opinion at the instance of the Commissioner under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, reads as follows : 'Whether composite appeals filed by J. K. Shah & Co. and Hansa Agencies covering their objections against the quantum of assessment and against refusal to give effect of registration and refusal to grant registration are not tenble ?' 2. A few facts pertaining to the understanding of this question arising from the assessment of M/s. J. K. Shah & Co. may be stated. 3. By an order dated 29th March, 1967, which was for the assessment year 1962-63, the ITO completed the assessment of the said firm determining its total income at Rs. 90,262 and observing further in the assessment order that the said firm was to be as...
Lalta Prasad Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR399(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN157(Bom)
Chandurkar J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee had filed a return of income on May 30, 1951, which was signed by his manager. A fresh return, however, came to be filed on March 30 1953. The assessment was completed on March 30, 1955. The conduct of the assessee prior to the completion of the assessment has been adversely commented upon by the ITO, the AAC and Tribunal. Notices under ss. 22(4) and 23(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, were issued to the assessee after March, 1953, after no effective response was received by the ITO in respect of his earlier notices. It was only on February 17, 1955, that the assessee admitted receipt of notices under ss. 22(4) and 23(2) of the Act and by that letter he informed the ITO that he had filed returns with the ITO, Calcutta. The ITO, Gwalior, who was in charge of the assessment was requested by the assessee to transfer his case to the ITO, Calcutta. However, on inquiry the ITO, Gwalior, did not find that there was any as...
Kakubhai and Co. Vs. Nathmal Kisanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom25; 1979MhLJ450
Gadgil, J.1. This is defendant's appeal challenging the decree passed against him in Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 1966 of the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola.2. The litigation pertains to the shop premises situate at Akola. They are part of house No. 92 in ward No. 29. This house is of the ownership of the plaintiff since 2-2-1954 as on that date the plaintiff purchased it from the previous owner Messrs Sawatram & Sons Limited under the sale deed Ex. 117. Deceased Shiojibhai was occupying all three blocks or tenements in the said house as a tenant since before this purchase. There is no dispute that Shiojibhai left possession of one of the blocks sometime in 1956. Thereafter the two blocks continued in possession of Shiojibhai on the rent of Rs. 1761/- per year. Shiojibhai died on 9-3-1958 leaving behind him his daughters and two brothers by name Shamjibhai and Hanaraj. There is no dispute that these three brothers had already partitioned their estate on 15-11-1948 unde...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Grauer and Well (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)235
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us in this reference reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the assessee was entitled to relief u/s 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. It is the admitted position that the view taken by the Tribunal that there was no transfer of any building to the assessee by the assessee taking the factory building on lease, is contrary to the decision of this Court in Capsulation Services Private Limited v. CIT Bombay. Mr. Munim on behalf of the assessee points out that the assessee would not be disentitled to relief u/s 84 merely because of the transfer if the building which is transferred does not exceed 20% of the total value of the building machinery or plant used in the business of the new undertaking established by the assessee. In other words, the contention in that the assessee is entitled to relief u/s 84 if it can established that it is protected by the Explanation to sub-s. (3) despite...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »