Mumbai Court January 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.D. Kanoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)262; [1982]137ITR137(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. One Mahavirprasad Kanoria, who had two sons, Murlidhar and Beniprasad, Murlidhar being the assessee in this reference, died on August 26, 1962. The assessee, Murlidhar, was a partner in two firms, namely, M/s. Banarsilal Mahavirprasad and M/s. Banarsilal Kanoria, having invested joint family funds in the partnerships and he was a partner for and on behalf of the joint family of which he was the karta. After the death of Mahavirprasad, the firm, M/s. Banarsilal Mahavirprasad, whose principal place of business was at Khalilabad, was reconstituted and the other firm, M/s. Banarsilal Kanoria, whose place of business was at Nagpur, was dissolved and was later reconstituted. The partnership deeds evidencing the reconstitution of both these firms are annex. A1 and A2 to the statement of the case.2. The family of the assessee consisted of himself, his wife, Snehalata, and two minor sons, Ajayprakash and Brahmaprakash. The capital standing in the name of the assessee in the Kha...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Satyanarayan Babulal Chourasia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)110; [1983]140ITR158(Bom); [1983]14TAXMAN384(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The original accountable person in this reference Satyanarayan, is dead and by consent, his other brought, Kamalnarayan, is brought on record as an accountable person and Shri Naik appears on behalf of Kamalnarayan.2. In proceedings for determination of estate duty on the death of one Babulal, who died on February 18, 1958, it has now been found as a fact by the Tribunal that a plot of land measuring 21,708 square feet, which was the separate property of Babulal, was thrown into the hotchpot of the joint family property and that on partition of the joint property, plots of land out of this land were allotted to the sons. It appears that the case of the Department was that the transaction of throwing the plot into the hotchpot by Babulal amounted to a gift. This has been negative by the Tribunal and arising out of this order of the Tribunal, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Ramkuvar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR85(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This case has been stated and three questions of law referred to us by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal under s. 39 of the Maharashtra Agrl. I.T. Act, 1962 (Maharashtra Act No. XLI of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the first two at the instance of the Commissioner of Agrl. I.T. and the third at the instance of the original assessee. These three questions are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in observing that the element of ownership of the assets used in deriving agricultural income is not a condition precedent to the claim of depreciation ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the opponent (that is, the original assessee), was entitled to claim depreciation on the assets on the basis of the original cost and not on the basis of cost price less depreciation allowable under the Act (that is the Maharashtr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P. Nagpur and Bhandara, Nagpur Vs. Behar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR521(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN80(Bom)
Mohta, J.1. Following two question are referred in terms of s. 66 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, at the instance of the Revenue :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true construction of Annex. 'A', the business of mining or of making loans was property held under trust so as to attract the provisions of s. 43(i) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the event of question No. 1 being answered affirmatively, whether the proviso (b) of s. 4(3)(i) was applicable to this case so as to render the income earned by the trust assessable to tax ?3. The reference arises out of assessments for the assessment years 1954-55, and 1956-57. The accounting years relevant for the years ended on Diwali of Samvat Years 2009, 2010 and 2011. The assessee is an association of persons consisting of trustees appointed under a deed of trust dated September 1,1952, executed by one Shri Beharilal Jhunjhunwala. Inasmuch as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Shiolingappa Shankarappa Mendse ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: [1982]135ITR375(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN101(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this reference is a partnership firm consisting of three brothers who became partners by a partnership deed dated November 12, 1958, and there is no dispute that since its formation, the partnership firm was registered under the provisions of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The three brothers who were the partners originally were members of an HUF and they brought about a partition of the joint family by an oral partition on November 10, 1958, which was later reduced to writing on November 11, 1958. The HUF had extensive movable and immovable property. After the partition of the joint family, the three brothers by a partnership deed agreed that the running HUF business which was essentially a business in all kinds of grains and seeds was to be carried on as a partnership business with effect from November 12, 1958. The initial capital of the partnership was to be Rs. 75,000 to be equally contributed by all the three partners. According to the partnership doc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Viaykishore Ballabhdas Rathi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)279
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to this Court u/s 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, reads as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee was that of HUF or Individual ?'Admittedly, the two assessees Vijaykishore and Naval Kishore were members of an HUF who partitioned their property in October 1957. Admittedly in the hands of Vijaykishore and Naval Kishore, the property was the joint family property. After partition, each of the assessees held the property allotted at partition as joint family property, the respective families consisting of the wife and daughter of each assessee.2. In respect of the asst. yrs. 1959-60 to 1962-63 the assessee was assessed as an Individual for the purpose of Wealth-tax, though the contention of the assessee was that the assets on the respective valuation dates were liable to be assessed in the hands of the respective HUFs.These assessments were confirmed by the AAC, so far as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, M.P. Nagpur Vs. Narayandas Gattani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)149; [1982]138ITR670(Bom)
Mohta, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of annexures 'A' and 'B', there were gifts of Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 51,000 respectively on May 28, 1952, and December 16, 1954 ?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the provisions of section 10 could be applied in respect of the said sums of Rs. 31,000 and Rs. 51,000 by reason only of their having been invested in the partnership in which the donees and the deceased were partners under annexure 'C' ?'2. Reference arises out of E. D. assessment consequent of the demise of one Shri Puranmal Gattani on February 17, 1961. He was a self-made man carrying on business and acquired properties without the aid of any ancestral nucleus. On May 28, 1952, he gave a sum of Rs. 31,000 to one of his sons, Shri Narayandas, who, on receipt of the am...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Umashankar Sar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]139ITR842(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN106(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred at the instance of the Revenue in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Penalty can be sustained after the assessee has filed the revised return before the assessment is completed by the ITO ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Explanation to section 27(1)(c) of the Act is applicable since the disclosure is made in the revised return ?'2. The assessee originally filed a return on August 30, 1969, showing an income of Rs. 13,319. However, later when in the course of assessment proceedings of the HUF of which the assessee was the karta, for the assessment year 1968-69, certain credits in the name of the assessee in the books of another firm Rai Bahadur Seth Durgaprasad (Mining) in which the HUF was a partner were noticed, the assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1969-70 showing an income of Rs. 57,960. The additional income ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (No. 1) and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1981
Reported in: [1989]177ITR163(Bom)
Tulpule, J.1. This petition raises a question as to the scope, validity and operation of section 281 of the Income-tax Act.2. The setting in which this question is raised can be briefly stated to be as follows. Petitioner No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'Gangadhar', was an assessee liable to pay income-tax and was doing business since about the year 1950. He was a partner in 'United Capital Construction Co.,' which was a firm, till about the year 1960 and was also carrying on business as a contractor. He was assessed to income-tax right from the commencement of his business. The assessment for the years 1062-63, 1963-64 and 1965-66 of the firm of which Gangadhar was a partner was first completed on November 6, 1964. It appears that this assessment was reopened by the Commissioner of Income-tax on November 4, 1966, and a fresh assessment order was passed against Gangadhar for the years 1962-63 to 1964-65 and he was assessed to income-tax on a sum of Rs. 50,570 for the year 1962-63, Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR190; 1981CriLJ767; 1981MhLJ487
Bharucha, J.1. In these three writ petitions the challenges are directed towards orders of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (now referred to as 'the Act'). The intended detenus under these orders are not in detention.2. The learned Advocate-General, appearing of behalf of the State of Maharashtra, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions. It was that the habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is exercisable only to examine the legality of a detention when there is a detention and in no other case. The Advocate-General submitted that an order of detention cannot be successfully challenged if it has not been executed. In his submission, though the prayers in the petitions seek writs other than the writ of habeas corpus, the petitions are in substance habeas corpus petitions.3. The Advocate-General cited in this regard the judgment of the Federal Court in Em...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »