Mumbai Court March 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Khandelwal Mining and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)104; [1983]140ITR701(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN42(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The business of the assessee-company in the relevant assessment year 1963-64, consisted of carrying on mining business and financing mining operations. The assessee also owned some land at Ghatkopar and the said land was leased by the assessee to M/s.Ishwardas Haridas Bhatia by a deed dated December 4, 1962, for a period of 98 years. Up to December 8, 1963, if rent was demanded, it was to be paid at Re. 1 per month, but from December 9, 1963, the rent was fixed at Rs. 11,250 per month payable on the 9th day of each English calendar month.2. The claim of the assessee before the ITO was that a sum of Rs. 14,500, which was paid as stamp duty for the lease deed, as well as a sum of Rs. 45,000 paid as brokerage to one Champaklal Kothar should be allowed to be deducted from its business income as the said expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The contention of the assessee before the ITO was that the income in the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Devidutt Dhurmal Bajaj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Bom)107; [1981]131ITR16(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 123 and 124 of 1971.2. The assessee in each of the references, at all material times relevant for the purposes of the references, was a partner of a firm called M/s. Devidutt Ramnivas which was carrying on business in ready shares and also speculation in shares. Both the assessees are brothers. During the material assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66, the firm in the ordinary courses of its business in ready shares sold some of its stock of shares ex-dividend and the total income of the firm for all the years includes sizeable amounts of the dividends received on the shares so sold. These dividends were allocated to the partners and the dividend income was taxed in the hands of the assessees as income from other sources. The ITO held that the assessee was not entitled to any earned income relief. The ACC, however, while rejecting the contention of the assessee that dividend income should be included under the head...
Tag this Judgment!Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)101; [1982]135ITR597(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN292(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. By this reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of 2/3rds of foreign tour expenses of the director, Shri Vinod L. Doshi, on the plea that this expenditure was of the nature of capital expenditure, is justified in law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 16,029 paid to M/s. G. Perry & Sons Ltd., England, on the plea that this expenditure is of the nature of capital expenditure, is justified in law ?'2. The facts leading to the reference are as follows :The assessee has business of manufacturing oil engines, agricultural equipments and machine tools. The year of assessment is 1963-64, for which the previous year ended on 31st June, 1962. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year, the assessee incurred an...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Tatoba Jadhav and ors. Vs. Anna Bhau Chougule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom174; 1982(1)BomCR136
ORDER1. This is a civil revision application filed by the original respondents against the order passed by the learned extra assistant judge , Kolhapur dated 10th Mar, 1981 admitting the appeal and holding that it is maintainable.2. Late Shri Bhau Narsu Choughule, original plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 1006 of 1977 in the court of the civil Judge , Senior Division Kolhapur against the defendants for the declaration that the resolution dated 24th July ,1976 passed by Shri Ram Shetkari Pani Puravatha Mandal ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Mandal') is illegal . In the said suit he asked for a further relief claiming that the declaration for the cancellation of his membership of the Mandal was also illegal, and therefore, he is entitled to an injunction for restraining the defendants from making any change in the pipe line scheme in which his right of taking water under the scheme is put in jeopardy . the claim of the plaintiff was contended by the defendants. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai Narayan Satesa Vs. Dattatraya Tukaram Jarande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Bom289
Rege, J.1. This is letters patent appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and order of Vaidya, J. dated 21st May, 1978 allowing the appeal by the defendant being First Appeal No. 410 of 1973 against the judgment and order of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 13th March, 1973 decreeing the plaintiff's suit.2. The point at issue in this appeal is whether the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit was to be determined not only on averments in the plaint but on the issues that were to be raised considering the averments in the plaint as well as defence in the written statement.3. the plaintiff filed a suit in the City Civil Court for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and possession thereof on the basis that the defendant was his licensee under the leave and licence agreement. The premises consists of a gala or a stall attached to a hotel on the first floor of the building known as Nanabhai Court on Development and Regulation.. Ambedkar Road, Dadar-1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Shantilal J. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)127; [1981]132ITR453(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the ITO, while completing the assessments, levied interest under s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assesse filed two separate appeals before the AAC. The only material ground of appeal in respect of the assessment year 1965-66 was that 'the Income-tax Officer erred in levying interest under section 139(1)'. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67 also, a similar ground was urged in the memo of appeal. We were further informed by the counsel for the assesse that the controversy referred to in the question under consideration is now relevant only for the purposes of the assessment year 1965-66.2. The AAC held that the order of the ITO passed under s. 139(1) of the Act was not an appealable order and he, therefore, declined to entertain any challenge with regard to the levy of interest by the ITO under s. 139(1) of the Act.3. When the matter was taken in appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. Vs. Mukund Iron and Steel ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR253]; (1982)ILLJ140Bom
Deshpande, C.J.1. These two Writ Petitions Nos. 3022 of 1980 and 3264 of 1980 and Writ Petition no. 169 of 1981 filed on the original side of this Court are directed against the same order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bombay, dated 14-10-1980. The Assistant Commissioner by this order partly allowed the application of the employers to retrench 80 workmen though employers applied for permission to retrench 139 workmen. Legality of this order is challenged by Sarva Shramik Sang, representative-union of the workmen recognised as such under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (hereinafter referred to as 'M.R.T. and P.U.L.P. Act') in Writ Petition No. 3022 of 1980. The Rashtriya Mukund employees' Union claiming to be representative of some of the workmen has challenged the same order in Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1980. Rule in these two writ petitions was granted on 22-10-1980. The said order of this Court granting Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Indokem Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)268; [1981]132ITR125(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN233(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The short question that falls for our consideration in this reference whether the bound and commission paid by the assessee to its employed during the accounting year ending on March 31, 1964, is covered by the expression 'benefit or amenity or perquisite' used in s. 40(c)(iii) of the Act, and, therefore, can be disallowed as a revenue expense under the Act.3. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in dyes and chemicals. If paid to is employees salaries, dearness allowance and bonus. Some of the employees were also paid commission and bound There was no written agreement for the payment of the bonus or commission, and the percentage of commission paid to the employees varied from year to year and from employee to employee. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant previous year being the year ending on M...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Western India Chamber o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)90; [1982]136ITR67(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Western India Chamber of Commerce Ltd., who are the assessees, are a company incorporated under the India Companies Act, 1913. The relevant assessment years in respect of which the present reference has been made are the assessment years 1960-61, 1962-63 and 1963-64. In respect of the first two assessment years a reference has been made to us under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, while in respect of the last two assessment years a reference has been made to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. In respect of these assessment years, the assessees contended before the ITO that the income which they derived from the immovable property owned by them was exempt from income-tax because the income was derived from a property which was held by them under a trust or legal obligation for charitable purposes. In the alternative, the assessee submitted that their other activities had resulted in losses during these assessment years. These were business losses a...
Tag this Judgment!Kranti Mohan Guruprasad Mebra and anr. Vs. Fatehchand Vasuram Behal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom263; (1981)83BOMLR445; 1983MhLJ141
1. For some reason of the other, the partners of a partnership firm had fallen out, and it is on account of the subsequent events that this proceeding has come into existence. The plaintiff who is the respondent herein was one of the partners along with the ist appellant, tha is the 1st defendant in the suit along with certain other persons in a partnership firm which was dealing in textiles and the concern was knows in the mercantile world as Bhuvaneshwari Silk Mills. This partnership firm came to be dissolved on Aug., 25, 1977 by a deed of dissolution with the net result that under the settlement, the plaintiff had become the owner of the powerlooms 16 in number which were initially a part of the partnership property. First in all 25 looms were put in operation by the partnership firm and 8 looms had been entrusted to the 1st defendant under the said settlement.2. On Oct., 5, 1977, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant recorded a separate agreement of hire purchase in respect of a out ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »