Mumbai Court January 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sindhubai Vasant Sahukar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)153; [1981]131ITR115(Bom)
Mehta, J.1. The following two questions are required to be answered in this reference u/s 256 of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was there sub-partnership having regard to the agreement dt. 30-7-1969 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, s. 64 was applicable for clubbing of the income ?'2. The factual background is as under :There was a HUF of which one Shri Vasant Rao Sahukar, the husband of the assessee Smt. Sindhubai, was a Karta. Family consisted of Karta-Vasantrao, his wife Sindhubai, three minor sons and three minor daughters. Oral partition was effected on 1-4-1969 as to a portion of the joint family properties, namely, (1) share capital appearing as credit balance in the HUF account in the account books of the partnership firm - Messrs N. V. S. Balaji & Company, Chanda, as on that date and (2) 1/7th share of the HUF in that very firm. A sum of Rs. 7,51,000 was standing to h...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT383(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This is an appeal by original respondents, Union of India and another against the judgment and order of Lentin J, allowing the petitioner's petition in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition.2. The question involved in this appeal is in narrow compass. The question is as to the meaning to be given to the expression 'vessel bound for any foreign port' and the express 'Ocean going vessel on foreign run', used in the Government Notification dated 5th April, 1949, (Ex. A to the petition) under clause 12 of the Central Excise Rules and a Notification dated 9th October, 1967 (Ex. D to the petition) issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules read with S. 3(3) of the Mineral Products (Additional Duties of Excise and Customs) Act, 1958 respectively.3. It may be stated at the outset that after the petition was disposed of by the trial court and the appeal was filed by the original petitioner company which was a foreign company, was taken over by the Government of India a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shrikant Ramnarayan Mor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)111; [1984]147ITR412(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1966-67. Though the assessee ought to have filed a return by June 30, 1966, he did not file any return under s. 14(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in spite of time being granted to him from time to time up to August 31, 1966. A notice under s. 17 with s. 14(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on December 15, 1970, and an assessment order under s. 16(5) was made on December 27, 1971 (sic).2. A notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act was issued on February 27, 1971. It may be pointed out that the material part of s. 18 which dealt with penalty as it was in force w. e. f. April 1, 1965, having seen so introduced by s. 18 of the W. T. (Amend.) Act, 1964, read as follows :'18. Concealment of assets, etc. (1). - If the WTO, AAC or Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person -(a) has without reasonable cause failed to f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sambasio and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)159
M. N. Chandurkar, J. - In the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1958-59, the assessee was disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 out of the total salary amount of Rs. 10,200 which was claimed to be deductible by the assessee, the AAC took the view that the ITO failed to apply his mind to some important aspects relating to the claim for payment of salary and he held that the assessee had not been able to clarify the issues as to the service rendered or as to how the payments were allocated. He, therefore, set aside the assessment with a direction that the ITO should complete the proceedings de novo.2. In appeal by the assessee the IT Appl. Tribunal considered this aspect of the order as amounting to enhancement and according to the Tribunal, the AAC was not entitled to set aside the order of the ITO and ask him to deal with the assessment afresh thus disallowing even that portion of the claim which the ITO had allowed in the first year. However, the operative finding given by the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Ceramics and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR262; 1981(8)ELT358(Bom)
1. The 1st petitioner is a Private Limited Company (referred to hereafter as 'the Company') carrying on business of manufacturing diverse electrical appliances and parts thereof. The 2nd petitioner is a Director and Shareholder of the Company. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. carry on business of selling various items including electrical appliances. By its letter dated 19th November, 1971, Bajaj Electricals Ltd. confirmed having accepted the Company's offer to sell to Bajaj Electricals Ltd. 17 items of electrical appliances itemised in that letter with 'Bajaj' brand on certain terms and conditions. Pursuant thereto the appliances were manufactured and sold by the Company to Bajaj Electricals Ltd. On 19th April, 1971, the Company filed its price-list with the Superintendent of Central Excise (namely, the 2nd respondent) in respect of the appliances sold by the Company to Bajaj Electricals Ltd. and declaring as the assessable value the price which the Company was to charge to Bajaj Electricals Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rizumal Pherumal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1981
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)132; [1988]169ITR25(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalty on the assessee was without jurisdictio ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalty was passed after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being hear ?'2. The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 1969-70 on June 28, 1969, declaring a total income of Rs. 52,799 on the basis of its books of account. The assessee had entered into a transaction with regard to the purchase of a house and had made a payment of Rs. 2,000 by way of earnest money to the vendor. The sale transaction, however, did not materialize and the amount of Rs. 2,000 by debiting it to its trading account.3. In the assessment proceedings, the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur Vs. Bhutan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR389(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN107(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The few facts which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of this reference are that on a revised returned filed on February 5, 1970, by the assessee declaring a total income of Rs. 72,682, the ITO by his assessment order dated March 20, 1970, made under, s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, determined the total income at about Rs, 1,21,000 and he initiated penalty proceedings under s. 241(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. After the ITO issued a show-cause notice under s. 274(1) of the Act and there was no response from the assessee to the said show-cause notice, the ITO issued another show-cause notice under s. 274(1) to the assessee stating therein that the case was being referred to the IAC and he sent a copy of that notice to the IAC. The IAC further issued a show cause-notice of the assessee under s. 274(1) and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000. It is common ground that the reference made to the IAC was made on the footing tht the minimum penalty imposable was Rs. 12,09...
Tag this Judgment!Francis Joseph Rebellow Vs. Olivia Jane Rebellow and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom234
1. These First Appeals are directed against the decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit relating to accounts in respect of the partnership business etc. First Appeal No, 174 of 1980 is filed by the original plaintiff; whereas First Appeal No. 176 of 1980 is filed by original defendant No. 11. The interest of both of them are, however, identical except, perhaps, for the fact that the other defendants in the suit claim to have an additional defence against defendant No. 11 which defence is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties hereafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. When special reference is to be made to the case of original defendant No. 11 he will be specially referred to as defendant No. 11. Before stating the respective case of the parties I may refer to certain admitted facts of the case.2. The plaintiff, defendant No. 11 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›