Mumbai Court January 1981 Judgments
Lachman Chaturbhuj Java Vs. R.G. Nitsure and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]132ITR631(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN198(Bom)
Lentin, J.1. For the assessment year 1970-71, the petitioner had to file his wealth-tax return on or before September 30, 1970. On July 2, 1970, the petitioner made an application for extension of time. However, that application is not before me, and neither learned counsel is in a position to state the period till which extension of time was sought for. On September 30, 1970, the petitioner made another application for extension of time department. According to the petitioner, his chartered ill December 30, 1970. No reply was vouchsafed by the accountant filed his wealth-tax return on May 31, 1971, showing the net taxable wealth at Rs. 2,91,224 and on that day admittedly wealth-tax in the amount of Rs. 956 was paid to the department on self-assessment basis. The filing of the wealth-tax return on May 31, 1971, is not admitted by the department. On February 24, 1973, the WTO issued a notice under s. 17 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') calling upon the petitioner t...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Shukla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR368(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. There was an HUF consisting of the assessee, Purushottam, his brother, Shridhar, and their mother, Laxmibai, which carried on the business of money-lending and plying of trucks, and the family own house property. The two coparceners, Purushottam and Shridhar, in their individual capacity are themselves assessee. According to the assessee, the two coparceners thought of carrying on a new business consisting of cotton oil extraction and the said business was commenced with effect from January 8, 1967. Admittedly, there is no partnership document but a registration certificate under the Sales Tax Act has been obtained in the name of the alleged firm. No doubt, later on, a partnership deed has been executed on December 25, 1968, which is, however, not material for the purposes of the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the accounting year of the assessee being from Diwali to Diwali. In the instant case, the accounting year ended in October, 1968. The assessment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. M.C. Subarna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom553
Deshpande, C.J. 1. These seven Miscellaneous Petitions along with Miscellaneous Pen. No. 747 of 1977 were referred to a Division Bench in view of the complexity of the question involved therein, by a learned single Judge at the time of granting rule itself. When these petitions were taken up for hearing Mr. Nail, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, stated that the wanted to withdraw the said petition. The surviving seven petitions involved the same points of law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is necessary to refer to certain background to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Nail before us in these petitions. All the petitioners are processors. They print cloth with the aid of power. The petitioners challenge the validity of Notifications No. CAE/24/77 issued by the Joint Textile Commissioner on 15th Apr., 1977. The said Notification is issued by the joint Textile Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him ...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Rectifiers Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC303(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicants are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. They manufacture and sell rectifiers. During the relevant period, the applicants were assessed to payment of sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of the sales of rectifiers effected by them. The assessments were made on the basis that the rectifiers sold by the assessees fell under entry 20 in Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1959 and not under the residuary entry 22 in Schedule E to the said Act.2. Being aggrieved by this finding of the Sales Tax Officer, the assessees went in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner, however, confirmed the original finding. Thereafter, the assessees approached the Tribunal which also upheld the previous findings. Thereafter, in Sales Tax Reference No. 31 of 1976, the assessees made an application to the Tribunal for referring to the High Court the question whether the rectifiers manufactured an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Smt. Archana R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)142; [1982]136ITR355(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN121(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this case, along with some other members of the family, was a co-owner of a building known as 'Sandoz Building' at Bombay. The owners entered into an agreement with the trustees of a trust known as H. H. Dr. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Memorial Foundation (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasers'), according to which the property was agreed to be sold to the purchasers for a consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs in the assessment year in question which is 1973-74. The property admittedly stood in the name of the co-owners, who were the owners and no sale deed was executed in that year in favour of the purchasers. On January 1, 1973, the co-owners received Rs. 21 lakhs as part of the sale price and it was further agreed between the purchasers and the co-owners that pending the registration of the sale deed, the co-owners would pay Rs. 30,000 per month by way of compensation out of the rental income of the said property to the trust. This arrangement is contained i...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Vidarbha and Marathawada Vs. Smt. Mangala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]143ITR491(Bom); 1982MhLJ686
Chandurkar, J.1. A trust for a charitable purpose has been created by members of Kale family at Nagpur and the settlors shown in the trust deed dated June 21, 1950 (annex. A to the statement of the case), were : (1) Shri. Purshottam Balkrishna Kale, (2) Smt. Ansuyabai Purushottam Kale (husband and wife), and (3) Shri. Kashinath Purushottam Kale, and (4) Shri. Balakrishna Purushottam Kale, who were the sons of the first two settlors. One of the properties settled on trust is known as 'Kale Bhawan', the value of which was shown in the trust deed at Rs. 2,74,000 and belonged exclusively to settlor No. 1959. The respondent in this reference is the accountable person, being the widow of the deceased, Shri K. P. Kale. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the charitable purposes for which the trust was created because it has not been found as a fact by a Tribunal that the trust is a public trust for be utilised for charities which according to the trust would include 'donations to erect ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indramohan Sharma (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)117; [1982]138ITR696(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee who is a partner in M/s. Flour Millers Engineering Corporation, Nagpur, had field a return as an individual for the assessment year 1972-73. The HUF of the assessee consisted of himself, his wife and two minor sons and, according to the assessee, a partition had taken place in the family with effect from January 1, 1971, evidenced by a memorandum providing that even after the partition, the assessee was to continue to remain a partner of the Engineering Corporation. The memorandum also provides that the investment and interest of the joint family in the partnership firm was equally divided between the members of the joint family after setting apart a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards provision for the future expenses of the unmarried daughter of the assessee, who was about five years old. According to the memorandum, the amount which was to be received by the members out of the amounts standing to the credit of the HUF in the partnership firm was to continue to rem...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.L. Mishra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR424(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN45(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. R. L. Mishra, the assessee, had secured from the Municipal Corporation at Nagpur, a contract for construction of a stadium known Yeshwant Stadium after his tender for the work of construction of the stadium was accepted by the Corporation. The contract is dated January 7, 1969. On April 15, 1969, a partnership firm consisting of three partners came to be formed, one of whom was the assessee. This document of partnership refers to an earlier partnership firm which came into being by a deed of partnership which was executed on October 26, 1968, for carrying on the business of construction of Yashwant Stadium under the name and style of M.S.M. Construction Company The new partnership firm came to be formed because two partners of the earlier partnership firm had retired w.e.f. April 14, 1969. The work of carrying out the construction work was to be done by the new partnership firm and the new partnership deed expressly recites that Shri Ram Lakhan Mishra, the party of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. Indramohan Sharma and Others (N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)120; [1982]138ITR699(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN72(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The following four questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in holding the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the assessments framed by the Income-tax Officer in the status of an AOP ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no association of persons was in existence and the assessments framed in the status of an AOP were not valid assessments ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no AOP was formed by virtue of the memorandum of partition and the share income derived from the firm did not belong to an AOP ? 4. Whether the notices issued u/s. 148/139 were invalid ?'2. This reference arises out of assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 against the assessee, Indramohan Sharma, and other members of his erstwhile joint family, consisting of h...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadevi (Smt.) Wd/O Jagdishprasad Choudhary Vs. Narsingdas S/O Ramp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1981
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR680
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition preferred by the landlord challenging the order of the learned Appellate Dy. Collector, Nagpur, passed in review proceedings under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). The petitioner filed an application under Clauses 13(3)(i)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the respondent tenant, who has a lease of the shop block in the building belonging to the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application of the petitioner under Clauses 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. As regards Clause 13(3)(i) the learned Rent Controller stipulated time for payment of arrears of rent, failing which permission thereunder was deemed to be granted. The respondent has however, paid the arrears of rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller and, therefore, no question of permission under Clause 13(3)(i) survived for consideration.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »