Mumbai Court March 1980 Judgments
Jagjivandas Govindji and Co. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR769(Bom); [1982]9TAXMAN194(Bom)
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of running saw mill, rice mill, etc. This partnership was originally constituted under a partnership deed dated November 15, 1958, with effect from January 11, 1958, and consisted of two partners, namely, Nagindas and Nagardas. This partnership so constituted was registered for the purpose of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1922') for the assessment year 1960-61, and this registration continued for the subsequent assessment years. There was a change in the constitution of the partnership on October 18, 1963. Three major sons of Nagardas joined the partnership along with one Ramniklal who is the brother of Nagindas. One Vinodrai who was then a minor was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Thus, this reconstituted partnership consisted of six major partners. The seventh being Vinodrai (minor) who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The proportions in which the m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. International Computers and Tabulators ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)20
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee company which was formerly known as British Tabulating Machine Co. Ltd. is incorporated in United Kingdom and had a branch in Indian upto 24-9-1952. The business of the company in India was letting on hire tabulating, sorting and accounting machines and sale of punching cards and ancillary equipments employed in the Hollerith system of Punched Accounting and Statistical Works. Hollerith (India) Ltd. now known as International Computers & Tabulators (India) Private Ltd. is a percent subsidiary of the assessee company. With effect from 25-9-1952 the assessee company's business in India was sold to this subsidiary company by the assessee company though the agreement of sale is dated 24-2-1953. In accordance with the agreement the assessee company transferred to the subsidiary company all its assets and liabilities in India except some rented machines which were described as 'such tabulating, sorting, accounting and ancillary machines as are now or shall here ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mehra S. Cambatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)195
Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the right of the assessee to receive income from the trust settlement created by the husband is exempt in view of s. 2(e)(iv) of the WT Act ?'2. The relevant provisions in the Trust Deed executed by the husband of the assessee contain directions to the trustees that after the death of the settlor, the trustee shall hold the corpus and accumulated income and out of the moiety of the corpus held in trust for the benefit of the assessee, the trustees were to pay the net income thereof to the assessee during her lifetime or until her re-marriage, whichever is earlier. The contention of the assessee was that the provision was in the nature of an annuity. The life interest of the assessee was valued by the WTO and the valuation was upheld by the AAC. The Tribunal took the view that the periodical payment was akin to an annuity and that the te...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay City-i Vs. N.D. Petit.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR650(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN387(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this case is the eldest son of Sir D. M. Petit, the third Baronet. The Baronetcy in question is governed by Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit Baronetcy Act (No. 6 of 1893) passed by the Governor General-in-Council. A trust known as Sir D. M. Petit Baronetcy Trust was created on March 9, 1893, under the said Act by Sir D. M. Petit, the first Baronet. The material provisions of the Baronetcy Act are to be found in s. 2 and s.3 of the Act. The preamble of the Act provides that the trust has been created;'To accompany and support the title and dignity of a Baronet lately conferred by Her Majesty Queen Victoria on him for an during the term of his natural life, and from and immediately after his decease to hold to his second son, Framjee Dinshaw Petit, Esquire and the heirs made of his body lawfully begotten, and in default of such issue with remainder to the heirs made of the body of the said Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit.'2. Section 2 and 3 of the Act read as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Tanil Ramdas Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR92(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN354(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, Tanil Ramdas, is the son of Ramdas Kilachand, who by a duly executed trust deed dated March 31, 1960, created a trust in respect of 130 shares in Kesar Corporation (P.) Ltd., each of the face value of Rs. 1000. The sales were fully paid up. Under cl. 1 of the trust deed, the trustees were to accumulate the income from the trust fund after discharging the necessary liabilities in the from of taxes, costs, charge and expenses in connection with the management and administration of the trust. Clause 2 of the trust deed, on the constriction of which the decision of this reference depends, read as follows :'The trustees shall until the vesting date, which shall be on the expiration of ten years from the date hereof, stand possessed of the settled premises to accumulate the net income thereof in the way of compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof from time to time in any investments hereby authorised for the investment of the set...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. H.H. Maharaja Mayurdhwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)27; [1982]136ITR279(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN242(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, who is the Maharaja of Morvi, succeeded his father, who was the then Ruler of Morvi, on his death on August 17, 1957. The assessment years in question for the purposes of the assessment to wealth-tax are 1959-60 to 1965-66, and the relevant valuation date is March 31 each of the respective previous years. The only dispute between the department and the assessee, who was a minor, related to the which may or may not be used by a Ruler. When the United States of Kathiawar was formed and Morvi became a part of the said United Stated of kathiawar, an inventory of the immovable property belonging to the Ruler of Morvi came to be made. The assessment proceedings have proceeded on the footing that Darbargadh in question is governed by the formula which was mooted by the Raj Pramukh and which is made a part of the statement of the case as annex. 'B'. Annexure 'B' is a letter addressed by the Raj Pramukh to the Maharaja of Morvi forwarding the inventory and what is...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Mhatre Vs. Dattatraya Janu Vayale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1605
ORDER1. This criminal application has been filed by Complainant Pandit Rama Mhatre in a crime registered at Hill-line Police Station as Cr. No. 6/1980 against the 45 respondents for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 324, 325 and 427 of the I.P.C. and S. 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act on 15-1-1980. The Complainant seeks to set aside the order made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane allowing the application of the respondents for bail.2. The complainant and the respondents 1 to 45 come from village Vasargaon, Taluka Kalyan, in District Thane. It is alleged in this application that the complainant-petitioner was the President of the Janta Party of the village Unit at the material time whereas the respondent No. 1 was the Sarpanch of the village. He had contested the election for Zilla Parishad membership on Indira Congress Ticket and was elected. One Pandurang Ganpat Patil, a resident of village Manur had contested the election as Janta Party candidate, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shamrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1332
Waikar, J.1. As there is a welter of judicial opinion as to the interpretation of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the matter has been referred to us by the learned single Judge. This rule is in these terms :'9. Duties of a Food Inspector. It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector (a) to (i) ...... ...... ...... ......(j) to send by registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent.'2. It may be pointed out that the above rule existed on the statute book between the period 13-2-1974 to 1-4-1976. The Rule came to be repealed after 1-4-1976 and is now substituted by a new Rule 9-A.3. Rule 9(i) as it existed and by which the matter, in hand, is governed had come up for considera...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Keshub Mahindra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR22(Bom); [1981]5TAXMAN323(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference in which three questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue and one question has been referred at the instance of the assessee arises out of the proceedings for assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.2. The father of the assessee died on October 31, 1964. The assessee, while submitting the return for the assessment year 1964-65 stated that he had filed a separate return of the net wealth of his father, late K. C. Mahindra, because, according to the assessee, the estate was still to be administered and the final position could be ascertained only after completion of administration of his estate. The WTO declined to separately assess the estate of the deceased father, holding that the assessee, being the sole heir and the father having died intestate, took the entire estate with all the liabilities and since the assessee had become the sole owner of the estate, he should have declared all the liabilities and si...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturchand Panachand Doshi and ors. Vs. Yeshwant Vinayak Sainkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom270
ORDER1. The facts involved in this petition are very few though the scope of the inquiry has been widened by the considerable industry which Shri Ajit P. Shah, appearing for the first petitioner, has brought to bear on this matter. The first petitioner was a tenant of a room measur-ing 19' x 14' and situated in building No. 427/428A at Budhwar Peth in Pune City. He came into possession of the suit room, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises', pursuant to a rent note executed on 1st of October 1957. The said rent note has specifically mentioned that the first petitioner, hereinafter referred to for brevity's sake as 'the petitioner', was to conduct the business of milk in the suit premises. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner while the third petitioner is the firm of the first two petitioners. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the building in which the suit premises are situated and, therefore, the landlords of the petitioners.2. Having noticed that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »