Mumbai Court August 1981 Judgments
Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1983)4ITD41(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the asscssee against the order dated 14-2-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The first ground in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 54,068 being the extra amount that the assessee was called upon to pay on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange. As there were some differences of opinion between some of the Benches of the Tribunal on this issue, especially after certain recent judicial pronouncements, the President was pleased to constitute a Special Bench to adjudicate upon this issue and that is how the matter has come up before us.2. The assessee is a company deriving income from business in the manufacture and sale of tin containers. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal is 1973-74 with the year ended 31-3-1974 as the relevant previous year. The assessee entered into an agreement dated 15-6-1971 with the Industrial Credit & Investment Corporati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Seksaria Sons (Privat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)148; [1982]138ITR419(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench C, Bombay, has been referred to us for out opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sums of Rs. 81,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 were not income within the meanings of section 10(5A)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. We are concerned with two sums of Rs. 81,000 and Rs. 2,00,000 received by the assessees on 15th February, 1956 and 31st July, 1956, respectively, by way of two installments of compensation in connection with the termination of their managing agency under an award, which were treated by the ITO as income in the hands of the assessees liable for tax under s. 10(5A)(a) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in their assessment orders for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59.3. There was an agreement of managing agency between the assessees, Seksaria Sons (Private) Ltd. and Seksaria Cott...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Desmet (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)157; [1982]138ITR382(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN87(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference made to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law stands referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the income of the assessee for 1964-65 the sum of Rs. 52,966 is deductible ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of solvent extraction plants. There was another company called Oil Corporation of India Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the oil company') carrying on similar business. During the year of account the assessee-company took over the business of manufacturing solvent extraction plants from the oil company. This was under an agreement dated 21st December, 1962, which agreement was to be effective as and from 1st October, 1962. One of the terms of the agreement related to the unexecuted contracts for supply of machinery pending with the oil company on 1st October, 1962. There were five contracts which w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)155; [1982]137ITR1(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN90a(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The following three questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'D'), under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 27,385 incurred on the ceremony of laying the foundation for the factory forms part of the 'actual cost' of the assets to the assessee for the purposes of grant of depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest expenditure of Rs. 5,52,936 relating to the bank overdraft utilised for erection of the factory forms part of the 'actual cost' of the assets to the assessee for the purposes of grant of depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 38,792 incurred on the inauguration ceremony of the factory is allowable as deduction in terms of su...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)99; [1982]134ITR17(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The following question stands referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was valid and tenable ?'2. The assessee-company carries on the business of manufacturing tyres and other rubber products. Whilst it was in the process of formation but not actually incorporated, the promoter of the assessee-company, namely, Indo Orient Agency Ltd., entered into an agreement dated October 9, 1959, called 'Initial Service Agreement' as agents for and on behalf of the assessee-company yet to be formed with Messrs. Dayton Rubber Company, Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A., hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'Dayton'. The purpose of the agreement was to obtain technical service and assistance of Dayton to enable the assessee-company to erect plant structure, acquire suitable equipment and machinery, install and e...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Amolak Singh Vs. Sewakram Tahilram Lalwani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR455; 1982MhLJ174
R.S. Padhye, J.1. Respondent Sewakram presented two applications on 16-2-1974 in the Court of Rent Controller, Nagpur under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, requesting for grant of permission to determine the tenancies of Bombay Stores through Balkrishna Rekhi and Sardar Cycle Company through Sardar Amolak Singh in respect of two premises used for shop in House No. 498 situated in Sadar area of Nagpur. Revenue Case No. 460/A71/(2)/73-74 was registered in respect of the application against Bombay Stores and Revenue Case No. 457-A-71/20/73-74 was registered in respect of application against Sardar Cycle Company. Both these cases came to be decided by a common order dated 6th November, 1975 by Rent Controller, Nagpur, granting permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order to terminate the tenancies of Bombay Stores and Sardar Cycle Company on the ground that Sewakram required both the shops for his bona fide occupation. Applica...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Stores and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ444
ORDERK.M. Mishra, Actg. J.C.1. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, partners of petitioner No. 1, which is a partnership firm dealing in foodgrains, were each convicted and sentenced to nine months' Rule I. and a fine of Rupees 1,000/- Under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to be hereafter referred as 'the Act'. The firm was also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-under the aforesaid Sections. In appeal that was preferred the learned sessions J Judge merely reduced the sentence imposed on petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 from nine months to six months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioners have now filed this present revision.2. The following facts are not in dispute. On 17-2-L975 Shri Purshottam Sinari, FoodInspector, PW 1, attached to the Directorate of Health Services, Panaji, visited the shop of the petitioners and purchased 750 gms, of Jawar from petitioner No. 2A. All th legal formalities were duly observed in the matter o...
Tag this Judgment!First Gift-tax Officer Vs. Xyz
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD738(Mum.)
1. These appeals are under the Gift-tax Act. The two appeals by the department relate to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and is in the nature of cross-appeals.2. During the two previous years, the assessee made a gift of 1,000 shares each of Calama Industries (P.) Ltd. Before the GTO, the assessee claimed that the shares for the purpose of gift-tax should be valued by adopting the break-up value method prescribed by Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. This rule provides for the valuation of the shares, which are not regularly quoted at any recognised stock exchange. The contention was rejected by the GTO who held that Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules cannot be applied, as Rule 10 of the Gift-tax Rules provides for the valuation of the shares. He valued the shares on the basis of the balance sheet and the average net profit for five years and added to the same the value of the goodwill calculated...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Blundell Eomite Paints ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR51(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN204(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, City-II, Bombay, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following three question have been referred to us for our opinion:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 appropriated from undistributed profits of the accounting years ended June 30, 1962, and placed to the credit of the general reserve in terms of the boards resolution dated on November 22, 1962, is includible in the computation of capital of the assessee-company as on July 1, 1962, for the purpose of surtax for the assessment year 1964-65 ? (2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the excess of Rs. 5,988 of the reserve actually created over the reserve required to be created in terms of section 10 (2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961), falls in the category of the 'other reserves' as contemplated under clause (iii) of rule 1 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnikant Narmadashankar Vs. C.L. Munshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR310(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN409(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent No. 1 to implement the order date September 17, 1975, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, and to award appropriate interest to the petitioner under s. 214 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner was liable for payment of advance tax for the first time in the assessment year 1972-73. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the estimate of income on December 15, 1971, and the estimated amount was Rs. 70,560. The tax due on this amount was Rs. 34,650, and the same was paid by the petitioner on December 23, 1971. The Addl. 4th ITO, B-III Ward, Bombay, completed the assessment and passed the assessment order on February 11, 1975, and the total income of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 46,000. The tax due on that amount was Rs. 16,790, and, therefore, the ITO directed t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »