Mumbai Court September 1981 Judgments
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)174; [1983]141ITR326(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN228(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Poona Bench, at the instance of the assessee.2. The reference raises a very interesting question as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as regards the appeals filed before it.3. The assessee in this case, the Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Sangli, is a public limited company under the companies Act, 1956, and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessment year involved is 1959-60, with the accounting year ending on June 30, 1958.4. In the relevant assessment year the assessee-company had purchased new electric motors of the value of Rs. 38,629, in respect of which in its return for the relevant year it claimed development rebate. Apart from the claim for development rebate on electric motors, the assessee had also claimed in its return development rebate on various items such as machinery purchases, power house machinery, on workshop machinery, factory water supp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. K.M. Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR903(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN118(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference the following three questions are referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B' :'(1) Whether, under the guarantee agreement March 5, 1951, the rental income of the several theatres was diverted at source from the assessee before its accrual by an overriding title ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee was entitled to set off the rental income against the business loss ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient and valid consideration for the execution of the guarantee agreement ?'2. It becomes necessary to state a few facts to enable us to consider the answers to be given. The respondent to this reference and the original assessee is K. M. Mody, a well-known personality in the cinema world since a number of years past. It may be pointed out that when this reference was heard on September 10, 1981,...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Wire Ropes Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: 1989(24)LC508(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT727(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated October 24, 1977 passed by Shri D. G. Ahire, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division XIII, directing that the two modified Polyvinyl Acetate Synthetic Resin Predicts viz. Surfasol S-5 and Surfasol S-6 should be classified as Synthetic Resins falling under Tariff item 15A(1)(ii) and charged to duty at 40% ad valorem with effect from June 18, 1977.2. The petitioners filed with the Superintendent, I/C Range No. V, Thane, a classification list in respect of these two items claiming that the products should be covered by Tariff Item 68 as accepted by the Department prior to June 18, 1977. The Assistant Collector proceeded to charge the duty on the basis of Tariff Item No. 15-A(1)(ii) in view of the Budgetary changes vide Finance Bill No. 2 of 1977 effective from June 18, 1977. The Assistant Collector felt that the revision of Tariff Entry N...
Tag this Judgment!Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT730(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the show cause notice dated October 20, 1977 issued by the Superintendent, Morvi Central Excise, Agra, and the copy of the notice is annexed as Exh. G to the petition.2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and have their registered office is Bombay. The petitioners inter alia carry on business of manufacture, sales and purchase of various types of footwears and parts thereof. The petitioners own factories in Maharashtra and in the course of business also purchase foot wears from other manufacturers and dealers and re-sell the same to the public at its retail shops located throughout India. The petitioners claim that they have no connection whatsoever with the manufacture of footwears or manufacturing activities of...
Tag this Judgment!Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. All India Pharmaceutical Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR335]; (1982)IILLJ311Bom
1. An interesting question as to whether recognition of a union can be cancelled under S. 13(1)(v) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for commencement of an illegal strike prior to the date of the recognition falls for consideration in this petition failed by the employer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts, which are not in dispute can be stated briefly to appreciate the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner-company manufactures sutures, surgical dressings, powder, etc., has its factories at various places in Bombay. Respondent No. 1 is one of the unions operating in the company undertakings. Respondent No. 1 union was recognised as a recognised union under S. 12 of the Act by an order dated August 24, 1977. The application for recognition was filed on November 3, 1976. During the pendency of the application before the Industrial Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Dairy Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: 1989(24)LC476(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT926(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act for the purpose of development of Dairy Industry.2. In the year 1975, the United Nations World Food Programme Action offered to the petitioners as gift 40,000 cartons of butteroil. On March 31, 1975, the goods arrived at the Port of Bombay from Belgium by Ship s.s. 'Amstelstad'. The petitioners' Clearing Agents lodged the Bill of Entry on March 25, 1975. The goods were assessed to Customs Duty under Item No. 21(2) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The Customs authorities assessed duty amounting to Rs. 44,79,374.40 on the goods, and the petitioners paid the duty on April 2, 1975.3. While clearing the goods, the petitioners noticed that 161 cartons were missing. The petitioners enquired with the Bombay Port Trust and the Bombay Port Trust issued a short-landing certificate on September 6, 1975. The petitioners thereafter filed a refund application for refund of Rs. 18,030/- being the Customs duty paid on the missing 161 ca...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Madhav Sanghaneri and ors. Vs. Bhausaheb Karbhari Kale and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR140; 1982MhLJ146
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the heirs, that is, the sons and widow of the original landlord who had made an application under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'). After repeated reasons, the application was finally dealt with by the Additional Tahsildar who held that the income of the original applicant-landlord was more than Rs. 1500/- and therefore, the application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act was liable to be rejected. Now admittedly when this order came to be passed on 25th September, 1975. The original landlord had died on 17th February, 1974. It appears, however, that the application came to be decided on the basis of evidence with regard to the income of the original landlord. The present petitioners had filed an appeal against that order, which was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, a decree had come...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Aniline Dyestuffs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)222; [1982]138ITR843(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN89(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference, which is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay Bench 'D', the following question of law stands referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing deduction of Rs. 21,117, being the interest paid by the assessee on the capital borrowed by it for the Thana project computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'2. The assessee-company is private limited company engaged in the manufacture of dyestuffs. We are concerned with the assessment year 1968-69 for which the corresponding accounting year is the year ended 31st March, 1968. The assessee-company had started a new industrial undertaking (hereinafter described as 'Thana project') for manufacture of dyes (intermediates) for which purpose it had already purchased land at Thana. The factory building was under construction and the machinery was under installatio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gokak Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)259
Desai, J.1. The following three questions stand referred to us for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in directing that the sum of Rs. 85,031 being the excess Development Rebate Reserve, Rs. 1,56,700 being the Staff Gratuity Reserve, and Rs. 10,26,000 being the Dividend Reserve be taken into account for the purpose of computing the capital of the assessee for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the provisions of the Expln. to r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appropriation of Rs. 10,26,000 made to Dividend Reserve, which was approved by the General Body after the first day of the relevant previous year, be taken into account in the computation of the capital of the assessee-company for...
Tag this Judgment!Ravji Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: 1989(24)LC520(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT734(Bom)
1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition is whether the corrugated roofing manufactured by the petitioners are a 'sheet' and, therefore, not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 68 of 1971 dated May 29, 1971.2. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business in Bombay and are producing articles of fibre glass reinforced polyester. On June 1, 1973, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Central Excise Department informing that the petitioners intend to produce items including corrugated roofing and desired to know whether the items are excisable. The petitioners were informed by letter dated June 2, 1973 that the product intended to be manufactured is excisable under Tariff Item No. 15A(2) but exempted from payment of whole of the duty leviable thereon under Government of India Notification dated May 29, 1971. By letter dated December 5, 1973, the Superintendent, Central Excise, informed the petitioners that the corrugated roofing being...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »