Mumbai Court September 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramlal S/O Hanmantlal Malpani and ors. and Om ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR13
M.P. Kanade, J.1. These two criminal appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment which would govern the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 54 of 1978 and 55 of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, also heard both the appeals filed by two different accused against the orders of conviction and sentence arising out of the two judgments of the trial Court and disposed of the same by a common judgment, as the question of law and facts involved in both the appeals was the same.2. These two appeals are filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated October 5, 1978, whereby Criminal Appeals Nos. 54 of 1978 and 55 of 1978 pending before him were disposed of acquitting both the accused charged by the learned Magistrate under sections 2(ia)(h), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.3. Few facts giving rise to these appeals are that there were food poisoning cases at Sailu. On...
Jitendra and Co. Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD891(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The only ground taken in the appeal is that the ITO and the AAC erred in holding that the assessee-firm is not entitled to registration as there is no genuine firm in existence.2. An earlier order of the ITO refusing registration for the assessment year 1974-75 came up in appeal before this Tribunal. The order had been set aside by the AAC on the ground that after recording the statements of the partners, the ITO did not give any opportunity to the assessee before drawing an adverse inference that the partnership is not genuine. An appeal filed against this order by the department was dismissed by the Tribunal. The matter was, therefore, decided afresh by the ITO, after giving the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the partners, whose statements were recorded. The ITO again came to the conclusion that the partnership is not genuine and this order has been confirmed by the AAC. Hence, the present...
Abdus Samat Haji Adam Kantharia and Others Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)249; [1982]135ITR177(Bom); [1988]8TAXMAN105(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under art. 226 of the constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the legality of the notice under s. 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), served on the petitioners by the competent authority, namely, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range I, Bombay, on August 27, 1974.2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings are required to be noted briefly. An immovable property admeasuring about 5,160 square metres situated at Kurla and bearing old Survey No. 72 was mortgaged by the owners, Messrs. Turakhia Syndicate, in favour of the trustees of Shree Lohana Sthapit Mahila Vikas Griha Trust. The mortgagors failed to clear the mortgage dues, and as per the covenants, the property was put to auction. The advertisement appeared in the newspapers on December 13, 1971, and the petitioners purchased a portion of the property admeasuring 3,495.02 square metres on December 17,...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. C.N. Caroe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)225; [1983]141ITR80(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN103(Bom)
Desai, J.1. One C. N. Caroe was a partner in a firm of solicitors, M/s. Craigie Blunt and Caroe. This firm was dissolved on September 23, 1953, and the business carried on by the firm was taken over by another firm in which Mr. Caroe became a partner. This new firm was M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe. Mr. Caroe died on September 9, 1954. The accounting year followed by the old as well as the new firm was the financial year. The accounts of both firms were kept on cash basis.2. For the assessment year 1954-55 Mr. Caroe had filed a return. For 1955-56 W.E.N. Butcher, executor, of the will of Mr. Caroe, filed two returns, one in respect of income for the period April 1, 1954, to September 9, 1954, and the other for the period September 10, 1954, to March 31, 1955. The ITO, in due course, completed the assessments in respect of the first return under s. 23(3) read with s. 24B and in respect of the other, directly by Butcher, under s. 23(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Bom)223; [1982]138ITR235(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN90(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference four questions of law are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'D'), the first three at the instance of the Commissioner and the fourth at the instance of the assessee. The said questions are as follows :2. By the Commissioner of Income-tax :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in disallowing a part of the 'Head office expenses' for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 as relatable to agricultural activity ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the expenses incurred for running the guest-house for assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 as a revenue expenditure ? (3) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax authorities were justified in disallowing a part of the guest-house expenses as relatable to agricultural activities for the periods relevant to the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Mrs. T. Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)283; [1982]136ITR180(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference made under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', and the following four questions stand referred to u :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have no application in respect of the income earned by an individual in the year of his death ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the provisions of section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, apply and the provisions of section 64 of the said Act have no application ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the income did not accrue to the husband of the assessee ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not competent in include the income of the...
Sassoon Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)244; [1982]137ITR427(Bom)
Rege, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'D', referring the following two questions for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment was validly reopened under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was right in withdrawing corporation tax rebate to the extent of Rs. 90,472.40 having regard to the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1960 ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1960-61, corresponding to the accounting year ending 31st December, 1959. The assessee was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which has been amalgamated with Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. with effect from 1st April, 1968. During the accounting year under consideration the paid-up share capital of the assessee-company was Rs. 37,70,000. In the previous year ending ...
Vinayak Mahadeo Nirgum Vs. Sadanand Shantaram Bandekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1981
Reported in: 1982MhLJ126
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Property of which the suit premises form part, originally belonged to one Mainuddin Ibrahim Harekar. By registered conveyance dated 21st April, 1972 he sold the same to the plaintiff. Subsequently, by assignments dated 5th July, 1972 and 29th July, 1972 respectively, he also assigned to the plaintiff pre-sale or pre-transfer arrears of rent i.e. rent due to him, the original owner, till the date 21st April, 1972 when he sold the property to the plaintiff (hereinafter the pre-transfer arrears of rent). On 18th October, 1972 the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy and claiming Rs. 708/- being pre-transfer arrears of rent due to the original owner but later assigned to the plaintiff plus Rs. 60/- being post transfer arrears or rent actually due to the plaintiff himself for the period...
Killick Nixon Ltd. and Others Vs. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas432(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. These are two appeals against the interim order in Company Petition No. 196 of 1981, under s. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), filed for rectifying the register of members. Appeal No. 344 of 1981 is filed by original respondent No. 1 - company and Appeal No. 345 of 1981, is filed by original respondent No. 2 - shareholder. Since both the appeals seek to challenge the same order and on the same grounds we are disposing of them by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience we will take facts from Appeal No. 344 of 1981.2. The appellant is a public limited company and is hereinafter referred to as 'the company.' Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company and is a shareholder of the Company; respondent No. 2, is both a shareholder as well as a director of the Company. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the Controller of Estate of Duty and the Regional Director of the Company Law Board respectively, whereas respondent No. 5 is the Union...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Allied Silk Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)132; [1983]140ITR428(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the questions referred to us for our opinion are as follows:'(1) Whether the expression 'income' in section 271(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, means assessable income or income as bona fide believed by the assessee to be its assessable income ? (2) Whether the assessee-firm was entitled to carry forwards and set off the loss of Rs. 39,763 incurred by it in assessment year 1960-61, against its profits for the assessment year 1961-62, notwithstanding the fact that the said loss was appointed amongst the partners and was carried forward in their individual assessments ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the maximum amount of penalty imposable against the assessee was Rs. 25 ?'2. On hearing the points at issue between the parties, we think that instead of the said three questions, only one question framed by us below would cover fully the controversy. The question as reframed by us would b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »