Mumbai Court April 1980 Judgments
Lokash Chemical Works Vs. M.S. Mehta, Collector of Customs (Preventive ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT235(Bom)
ORDERModi, J.1. The petitioner carries on business at Raipur in the State of Madhya Pradesh of manufacturing, inter alia, drugs and medicines, one of the product being vitamins preparation. One of the ingredients with go into such product is 'nicotinamide' also known as 'nicotonmide'. However, the Import Trade Policy describes this only as Niacinamide.2. In the year 1971 the petitioner was a small-scale industry and was granted three import licences respectively dated 4-6-1971, 7-6-1971 and 3-8-1971 which permitted import of various items mentioned therein. These licences were what are known as actual users licences. One of the conditions of such licences is that goods imported must be used by the importer himself and cannot be sold in the market. One of the requirements to be complied with for obtaining such licence or having the same amended is that in case the importer is a small scale industry, the importer has to apply to the sponsoring authority, the Drug Controller for issue of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-ii Vs. D.G. Goenka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR260(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The answer to the question referred in this reference at the instance of the revenue depends upon the construction of the definition of 'earned income' in s. 2 (7) of the Finance Act. The question which has been referred is an follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend received by the assessee on the shares held by him as stock-in-trade of his share business was earned income ?'2. The assessee is admittedly a broker as well as a dealer in shares and carried on in the relevant assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 a regular business of purchasing and selling shares. During the course of his business, he often sold shares-cum-dividends. At times, when he could not deliver the shares to the purchasers before the transfer books of the company were closed for the declaration of dividend, the assessee would receive and collect the dividend being the registered shareholder of such shares and would pay the dividend to the purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Ramdas Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR150(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN317(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred in this reference is identical to the question which we have just dealt with in Reference No. 48 of 1971, CIT v. D. G. Goenka : [1981]129ITR260(Bom) . The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, dividend income of the assessee was his earned income ?'2. The assessee is a partner of a partnership firm. M/s. Lallubhai Nagardas of Bombay. The firm consists of three partners who are brothers. The firm carried on business of purchase of sale of shares in the assessment year 1966-67, and it has earned dividend income in that year of Rs. 71,706. The question before the ITO was whether the share of dividend income received by the assessee should be treated as business income and earned income of the assessee on the ground that these shares represented the stock-in-trade.3. The ITO assessed the dividend income under the head 'other sources' and treated as unearned income. The assessee's appeal before the AAC cam...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikamsingh S/O Chatarsingh Sapkal and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: 1980(2)BomCR332
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this petition we are called upon to decide the rights of a probationer. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Engineer (Civil) on 16-11-1976 by the first respondent-a Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The second respondent is the Vice Chairman and General Manager of the first respondent. Admittedly, this appointment was on a probation for one year and subject to the Bombay Transport Employees' Service Regulations issued under section 45 of the aforesaid Act.2. The appointment order fixes the pay scale and the relevant portion of it reads as under :---'On his appointment as Deputy Engineer (Civil), Shri Sapkal will be on probation for a period of one year from the date he too over the charge of the post of Deputy Engineer (Civil). His services, if not required are liable to be terminated without notice during or at the end of the probationary period. Shri Sapkal will be governed by B.S.T. Es. Regulations as amended fro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Mohanlal Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR642(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN425(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the I. T. L Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 50,000 made by the assessee to M/s. Gorakhram Gokalchand was of a revenue nature and was therefore, an allowable deduction ?'2. The assessee is a registered from and carries on business in art silk cloth as wholesalers in Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay. The assessment year is 1965-66 and the relevant accounting year is the Samvat year ending November 4, 1964. One M/s. Gorakhram Gokalchand (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. G. G.') were the tenants of shop No. 582/638, Govind Gulli, Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay. On June 30, 1952, the assessee entered into an agreement with the said M/s. G. G. The agreement was in the form of a letter addressed by the assessee to the said M/s. G. G. Whereby the said M/s. G. G. were to act as the commission agents of the assessee to dispose of the assessee's art silk goods a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-ii Vs. Hindustan Export and Imp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR691(Bom); [1981]5TAXMAN169(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, are as follows :'(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that section 79 will apply only where a change in shareholding has taken place in a previous year relevant to an assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1962 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have no application so far as the carry forward of the loss of 1959-60 is concerned ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act in which in the accounting year 1960, which is the previous year for the assessment year 1961-62, 98% of the shares were held by one Rattanlal and the remaining two per cent. by his wife Mrs. Brij Rattanlal. In this accounting year 1960, there was a change in the shareholding of the assessee-company. Forty pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR711(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN553(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. This is a reference by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the question which has been referred for the opinion of this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following 3 funds can be included in the capital of the assessee-company for the purpose of ascertaining the standard deduction as defined under section 2(9) of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Rs. 38,86,145, provision for taxation. 15,49,700, proposed dividend. 2,35,000, provision for contingencies. ?'2. The assessee, Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., objected to the exclusion of the following funds from the computation of its capital under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the purpose of ascertaining the standard deduction as defined in s. 2(9) of the Act :Rs. (1) 38,86,145, being provision for taxation. (2) 15,49,700, being proposed dividend. (3) 2,35,000, being provision for contingencies.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Laxman Bhalchandra Vs. Rangrao Amrutrao Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR12; 1980MhLJ821
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the legality, propriety and validity of a most surprising, if not also a shocking order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambejogai, directing issue of process under section 500 of the Penal Code against the petitioner herein Gajanan Laxmna Bhalchandra, a senior Advocate practising at Ambejogai, District Beed.2. Pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate was Criminal Case No. 840 of 1977 filed by one Motilal Shankarlal Zanver against twenty-two accused persons under section 500 read with sections 109 and 34 of the Penal Code. These accused were represented by their Advocate the petitioner herein. While in charge of the defence, he was cross-examining one Rangrao Amrutrao Deshpande, a witness for the prosecution. In the course of this cross-examination some of the questions put and constituting the subject-matter of the instant proceedings were :'Q.1: You are trying to defame N.K. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-i Vs. N.U.C. Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR377(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN436(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. This is a reference by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The short question that falls for our consideration is :'Whether the assessee-company is an 'industrial company' within the meaning of cl. (d) of sub-s. (7) of s. 2 of Chap. II of the Finance Act, 1966 ?'2. The assessee which is a private limited company engaged in business, as disclosed in its memorandum and articles of association, among other things, of undertaking, building, constructing, erecting, planting, executing, carrying out, improving repairing, enlarging, etc., of factories. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1966-67, and during the year under consideration, it had constructed factories for various large concerns. Admittedly, further, the company declared dividends to the extent of 64% of its net distributable income. It was the case of the company before the ITO that it was entitled to exemption from the levy of super-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Jer Navis Lubimeff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)196
Chandurkar, J.1. On a construction of the trust deed in question, the Division Bench which decided the reference has taken the view that the power to appoint conferred by cl. 2(3) of the deed of trust is not a general power of appointment, but a special power of appointment and the exercise of that power does not fall within cl. (c) of the definition of transfer of property given in cl. (c) of section 2(xxiv) of the GT Act, 1958. The construction which the Division Bench has placed on cl. (c) of s. 2(xxiv) that it will be attracted only in the case where there is a general power to appoint appears to us to be clearly borne out by the use of the words 'any person other than the donee of the power.' We do not therefore think that the question relating to the construction of the scope of cl. (c) is such that the Revenue can properly ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.2. So far as the second question decided by the Division Bench is concerned, it only applies the decision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »