Mumbai Court April 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Homi Mehta and Sons P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)238; [1982]137ITR213(Bom); [1982]9TAXMAN190a(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference arises out of proceedings for reassessment under s. 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the income of the executors of the estate of one Sir Homi Mehta, who died on 15th April, 1948, leaving a will dated 12th January, 1948. The executors of the said estate were justice N. H. Coyajee, Lady Goolbai, wife of Sir Homi Mehta, Fali and Jali the two sons of Sir Homi Mehta, and Minoo N. B. Dinshaw the son-in-law of Sir Homi Mehta. Paragraph 8 of the will bequeathing the residuary property provided as follows :'The rest and residue of all my property of whatsoever kind and wheresoever situate unto my trustees upon trust to pay the net income thereof to my wife, Lady Goolbai, absolutely for and during the terms of her natural life and on and after her death and over my residuary estate to Homi Mehta and Sons Private limited, absolutely.'2. Lady Goolbai died in April, 1953.3. The executors of the estate of lat...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Plastic Corporation Private Limited and Others Vs. Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT425(Bom)
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question which requires determination is whether the article 'phenolic moulding powder' manufactured by the petitioners is entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty as provided by Notification dated June 1, 1971 issued by the Central Government.2. The 1st petitioners are a Private Limited Company, while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. The petitioner No. 1 own a factory at Quarry Road, Malad (East), Bombay and inter alia manufacture 'Phenol Formal Dehyde Synthetic Resin'. The said article is manufactured in various forms, viz. lump, solid, liquid and moulding powder. The basic ingredients of phenolic resin are Phenol and Formaldehyde. The Phenolic Resin is the result of Phenol and Formaldehyde being reacted with each other. The Phenolic Moulding Powder is manufactured by processing phenol formaldehyde synthetic resin along with other ingredients like fillers, colouring ...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyadhar Gajanan Mhatre and anr. Vs. Vikramsingh P. Solanki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom319
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court in Suit No. 3932 of 1964 returning the plaint for presentation to the proper- Court on the ground that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court to decide the issue depends on the averments contained in the plaint read as a whole and not on the defence that may be taken up by the defendant. It follows that even if in the plaint the plaintiff has attempted to meet anticipated defence it cannot affect the plaintiff's basic cause of action in the plaint. To appreciate the cause of action in the plaint it is necessary to consider the history leading to the present suit.3. The plaintiffs are the owners of a building known as 'Ganpati Nivas' at Cadell Road. One Shanta Gopichand Rin was the monthly tenant in respect of the ground floor of the said building. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Small Cause Court being R.A.E. Suit No. 15117 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Cos. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Director, E.S.i.C.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR504
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant company is registered under the Indian Companies Act and runs about 24 cement factories in various parts of the country. All these factories are covered by the definition of 'factory' under Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act. These factories are also registered under the Factories Act. It is an admitted position that the relevant factories to which the Act applies are paying employer's special contribution in respect of the employees covered by the Act. However, the employer company is not paying the employer's special contribution and the employees' contribution in respect of the employees employed in the head office and the branch offices. The head office of the company is, at Bombay while the branch offices are at New Delhi and Calcutta. It is in respect of these offices that the employer company was not making any payment towards the contribution as per the Act. Therefore on...
Tag this Judgment!Tipco the Industrial Plastic Corporation Private Limited and Two ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1981
Reported in: 1989(25)LC360(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question which requires determination is whether the article 'phenolic moulding powder' manufactured by the petitioners is entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty as provided by Notification dated June 1 1971 issued by the Central Government.2. The 1st petitioners are a Private Limited Company, while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. The petitioner No. 1 own a factory at Quarry Road, Malad (East), Bombay and inter alia manufactures Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resin'. The said article is manufactured m various forms, viz. lump, solid, liquid and moulding powder The basic ingredients of phenolic resin are Phenol and Formaldehyde. The Phenolic Resin is the result of Phenol and Formaldehyde being reacted with each other. The Phenolic Moulding Powder is manufactured by processing phenol formaldehyde synthetic resin along with other ingredients like fillers ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hotel Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Stevenson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom160
ORDER1. The present chamber summons is taken out by the defendant for a relief from an undertaking given to this Court contained in the consent terms which disposed of the suit.2. On 28th Mar., 1941, the plaintiff who owns the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay, entered into lease and hire agreement in writing, registered, with Jacques M. Stevenson in respect of a premises admeasuring about 2,375 sq. It. The plaintiff was running a hair dressing saloon in the said premises and Jacques Sievenson was to do the same business, The lease was renewed twice, once on 22nd Feb., 1943, and again on 5th March 1946, The defendant joined Jacques M. Stevenson as a partner on 15th Mar., 1944, and then took an assignment of the right, title and interest of Jacques M. Stevenson on 19th Sep., 1947, There were further registered renewals of lease on 17th Mar., 1949, 1st April, 1952 and 12th Feb., 1955, A portion of the said premises was surrendered on 4th July, 1952, with a consequent reduction in the rent. On 9t...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Dhuru Chufi (Huf) Vs. Seventh Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)2ITD44(Mum.)
1. These 12 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order, dated 21-1-1980, of the AAC. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a HUF. The present appeals relate to the assessment of the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1974-75, both inclusive.2. The assessee filed voluntary returns under Section 14(1) of the Act, for all the 12 years under consideration. The WTO completed the assessments exparte under Section 16(5) of the Acton the ground that the assessee had failed to comply with the terms of the notices issued under Section 16(2) for all the years. He determined the total wealth of the assessee at figures considerably higher than the figures in return in all the years.3. The assessee appealed to the AAC and contended that the WTO had erred in making the assessments ex parte under Section 16(5). The case of the assessee was that exce...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. International Computers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: [1990]186ITR616(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee is admittedly not an Indian company and is a company registered under the United Kingdom Companies Act. It manufactures data processing equipments and these machines are sent overseas on hire. The assessee had a wholly owned subsidiary company in India by the name of M/s. International Computers and Tabulators (India) Private Ltd. The data processing machines are let out by the assessee-company to its Indian subsidiary and rental is charged by the assessee-company. The Indian subsidiary company hires out the equipments and the machines to other customers in Indian on rental basis. Out of the hire amount earned by the Indian subsidiary, from each customer in India, 45% of the rental charges are aid by the subsidiary company in India to the company in U.K. for obtaining from them the machines on hire.2. In the relevant assessment years, i.e., from 1963-64, the entire hire charges payable by the Indian subsidiary to the assessee-company have been remitted to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hormusji Hirjibhai and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)248; [1983]140ITR966(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The assessee is a firm and the assessment year is 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being from October 24, 1957, to November 11, 1958. The assessee consisting of two partners was assessed for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1958-59, in the status of a registered firm. In the accounting year ending Dewali 1958, the two partners admitted one Shri Homi Jamshedji, son of one of the two partners, as a partner and carried on its own business. The deed of partnership was executed on October 14, 1958, and an application for registration under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was filed before the ITO on November 6, 1958. It is also necessary to note that the firm had applied for registration under the Indian Partnership Act, with the Registrar of Firms on October 24, 1958, and the Registrar of Firms, after necessary enquiries, granted registration on December 31, 1958.2. The ITO held that the firm was not genuine. He also held that a...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom199; (1981)83BOMLR284
Deshpande, C.J.1. Of the two petitioners in this Writ petition, No. 1 is the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (Herein - after referred to as the Society) while No. 2 is its Member. Under demand notice dated 12-2-1980 and 3-3-1980 by Respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, the Society is called upon to pay a total sum of Rs. 10 lace towards its contribution for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 for 'the Co-operative State Cadre Employment Fund' (hereinafter referred to as the Fund) under sub-s. (4) of S. 69A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Society is notified by Respondent No. 1 State Government by a notification dated 6-3-1979, as one of the Societies, which in its opinion, derives benefit directly or indirectly from the services of the Co-operative State Cadre of Secretaries, constituted under Sub-s (1) of S. 69A (hereinafter referred to as the Cadre). Under R. 53A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »