Mumbai Court August 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]142ITR298(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The question referred to this High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether on a proper interpretation of sections 43(1) and 43(6)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in arriving at the actual cost/written down value of assets, which were in existence when the new Act came into force, any adjustment should be made on account of contributions paid by customers other than Government and public or local authorities, when such adjustment was not required to be made when the actual cost/written down value was determined for the first time under the repealed Act ?'2. The counsel for both the sides are agreed that the answer to be given to the said question is concluded as far as this court is concerned by the decision of this court given in CIT v. Bassein Electric Supply Co. Ltd. : [1979]118ITR884(Bom) . The counsel are also agreed that for the very reasons as are to be found in the above decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Bhati Vs. Babulal Tarachand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR333
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner in this revision application has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court of the 17th April, 1980 wherein the plea of the petitioner that he was a 'debtor' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Act No. III of 1976), was rejected.2. Before dealing with the rival contentions of learned Advocates, it will be pertinent to set out briefly a few facts. The respondent (who will hereinafter be refereed to as 'the plaintiff') filed a summary suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against the present petitioner (who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendant') for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest and costs. The plaintiff took out a summons for judgment in that suit against the defendant on 16-4-1975. After hearing the parties the learned Judge was pleased to grant conditional leave on the defendant depositing a sum of Rs. 3,500/- on or before 3-7-1975. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gokak Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)256; [1982]135ITR758(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the question referred to the High Court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, all or any of the four funds set out in para. 1 above was liable to be included in the computation of the capital of the company under the Second Schedule to the Act for the purpose of determining the standard deduction under section 2(9) of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? The assessee-company is the Gokak Mills Ltd. The four funds, with which we are concerned in this reference, which are enumerated in the statement of the case, are as follows : Rs.'(a) Provision for staff gratuity 1,62,917(b) Provision for contingencies 74,930(c) Provision for freight, rebate, etc 48,388(d) Proposed dividend 11,88,579------------14,74,814'-----------2. The question very briefly paraphrased would be whether the four amounts or funds were reserves and liable to be included in the computation of the capital of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Duncan Stratton and Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)280; [1983]140ITR1025(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this income-tax reference the question referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows:'Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide, in an appeal against an order of the Income-tax Officer under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when as assessee is in default in making a payment of tax or when an assessee is not in default in making a payment of tax irrespective of the provisions of section 220(6) of the said Act ?'2. In the reference we are concerned with the proper interpretation of s. 220(6) read with s. 221 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In order to appreciate the nuances of the arguments the facts may be briefly stated as under:3. We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. The net profit worked out by the assessee-company as per its profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1969, was Rs. 41,394. The total income assessed by the ITO was Rs. 7,20,892, and on this footing the net tax payable worked out t...
Tag this Judgment!Sabira Begum Habibullah Shaikh Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR103
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition for seeking a write of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner is challenging the order of detention dated 9th April, 1981, detaining one Harun Habibullah Shaikh, under the provisions of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the various averments made in the petition, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner did not know the English language. It is alleged by the petitioner that the detenu even did not know Marathi language thought he could sign in the Devnagari script and the only language he could understand is Urdu. It is the case of the petitioner that the grounds of detention were neither supplied nor explained to him in the Urdu language and, therefore, it is intended by Shri Canteenwala, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the detention order is ab initio void, as it did not offer reasonable opportunity to the detenu to make necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Gitabai W/O. Shantaram Deshmukh Vs. Prabhavati W/O. Balkrishna Deshmuk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR412
Bhonsale, J.1. This petition filed by one Gitabai W/o. Shantaram Deshmukh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the learned Minister for State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Shri B.J. Khatal, setting aside the two concurrent orders passed by the learned Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, dated September 8, 1969 and October 4, 1968 respectively, and confirming the order of sale effected by the Special Recovery Officer and the order confirming the sale passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, dated June 29, 1968 in respect of two fields belonging to- the petitioner Gitabai, i.e. field survey No. 30 of and field survey No. 17 of Dasapur, both of Tahsil and District Amravati.2. The petitioner Gitabai owns several fields out of which two fields, survey No. 30 admeasuring 13.34 acres assessed to land revenue at Rs. 14/- of village Januna and Held survey No. 17 admeasuring 15.10 acres asses...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees and Executors of the Late Shri Shamji Kheta Vs. Income-tax Of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: [1984]148ITR219(Bom)
Tulpule, J.1. This petition by the trustees appointed under the will of deceased Shamji Kheta under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the issuance of a notice to the trustees under s. 23(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on November 15, 1975. This was preceded by earlier letters in 1971 requiring the executors to attend, by the ITO, in the matter of proceedings which were started under s. 34 of the Act against the deceased assessee, Shamji Kheta.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation and challenge are that Shamji Kheta owned extensive immovable properties and was carrying on numerous business and had lucrative properties. He was an owner of cinema house in Nagpur, Gondia and Jabalpur wherein he ran the business of exhibition of films. Besides, he had also money-lending business and also earned large income from several immovable properties. The assessee was assessed to income-tax by the ITO, B-Ward, Nagpur. The assessment in ques...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Wool Spinning Mills Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: 1989(25)LC531(Bombay); 1983(14)ELT2200(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a firm carrying on business of manufacturing shoddy woollen yarn. The petitioners own a shoddy woollen Mill wherein they utilise the imported woollen rags for the purpose of manufacturing woollen yarn and blankets. The Government of India has permitted the import of mutilated woollen rags to be utilised by the consumer shoddy mills. There are two types of woollen rags, garment rags i.e. rags from woven woollen fabrics and hosiery rags i.e. rags from knitted woollen material. The Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 read with sub-section (3) of Section 160 of the Customs Act, 1962, published a Notification dated April 20, 1966 exempting woollen waste and woollen rags, when imported into India, from the whole of the portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The importers of woollen rags have to claim the said exemption under Item 49(4) of the Indian Custo...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD848(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessment, which is the subject-matter of the present appeal, had been subject-matter of an earlier appeal before the Tribunal as IT Appeal No. 1148 (Bom.) of 1978-79, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 21-4-1979. All the matters relating to the assessment year were disposed of by the above order excepting the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to what may conveniently be referred to as the indirect exports. The claim of the assessee for weighted deduction was over the commission paid to selling agents and the salary of the staff engaged in export. This claim was dealt with by the Tribunal as follows : Coming now to the commission paid to selling agents, we find, prima facie, that the AAC's action is justified. However, the AAC has not gone into the details and brought on record particular or express conditions under w...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohandas Kuberdas Katakia Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT399(Bom)
1. The petitioner is an Importer and runs a Woollen Handloom Industry using shoddy wool and woollen rags as raw material for spinning woollen yarn.2. The petitioner runs his business in the name of 'Vishnu Cottage Industry' situated at Kalol in Panchmahal District of Gujarat State. Prior to the year 1956, the raw material required for the weaving sector of the shoddy sector of the woollen industry was met by the import of shoddy woollen yarn, largely from Italy. The import of raw material was regulated under the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Import Control Order. The import of the woollen rags was exempted from payment of customs duty, whereas the import of second-hand clothes was not exempted and 100% duty was leviable thereon. The importers of woollen rags were faced with his disadvantage by reasons of the fact that in the foreign countries, the cost of stripping or mutilation of second-hand garments into rags was very heavy. The foreign exporters ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »