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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. M.L. Dahanukar and Co. P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR232(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bombay Bench 'C') is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the action under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment years involved are 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. The question concerns the application of s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was found by the Tribunal that for all the three assessment years under consideration there was a net distributable surplus of Rs. 3,31,565, Rs. 1,92,164 and Rs. 2,85,158, respectively. No dividend was declared by the assessee-company for all the three years. Accordingly, the ITO, with the approval of the IAC, levied penal super-tax at 37% for the assessment year 1962-63. For the other two years also penal super-tax at the same rate was levied.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Asian Paints (India) P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: [1981]141ITR708(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN203(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In our opinion, both these references can be disposed of by a common order. The assessee in both the matters, who is the respondent is Asian Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. In Income/tax Reference No. 97 of 1972, we are concerned with the computation of super profits tax for the assessment year 1963-64. In Income-tax Reference No. 102 of 1972, we are concerned with the computation of surtax of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. In both the reference the question which is required to be considered is whether the identical amount of Rs. 1,70,000 shown in the balance sheet of the company as 'gratuity reserve 'in all the three assessment years under consideration would be a reserve and hence includible in the computation of capital or not.2. The question referred to us may now be set out. In Income-tax Reference No. 97 of 1972, the following question stands referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'gratuity reserve' shown in the balance s...
Patel Engineering Co Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)151; [1982]135ITR49(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. A short but interesting point arises for determination in this reference in which the following question is referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the percentage of allowance of entertainment expenditure as laid down in section 37(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be applied to the profits of the assessee, inclusive of share income from joint venture partnership ?'2. In order to appreciate the arguments urged at the Bar on behalf of the assessee and the revenue, respectively, a few facts may be stated. The assessee is a limited company, and we are concerned with the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. In the former year, the assessee had claimed entertainment expenditure of Rs. 35,958. According to the ITO, the amount in excess of Rs. 15,557 was required to be disallowed, and the same was accordingly disallowed. The amount disallowed came to Rs. 20,401. For the next year...
Kisan Bilas Badrinarayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR257
V.A. Mohta, J.1. An interesting point as to the construction of section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act ('The Act' for short) is involved in this appeal by the original plaintiff-a bullion merchant from Warora in Chanda district.2. The facts so far as relevant to the controversy may be put in nutshell thus. On 13th January, 1971, the plaintiff entrusted a sealed and packed parcel containing old silver ornaments purporting to be of the value of Rs. 15,000/- at Warora Station to the employee incharge of the Central Railway for being carried and transported to Bombay. The consignee was another bullion merchant at Bombay who was to pay the freight at the time of delivery. Forwarding note declared the contents of the parcels and the value thereof as being Rs 10,000/-. Normal period of delivery was 3 to 4 days. It never reached the destination and after a period of merely one week, the plaintiff was informed that the parcel was missing from the Cloak room of the Wardha Railway Station on its...
Shivaji Bapu Chavan Vs. Sharwari Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR13
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In these and other companion writ petitions the validity of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. III of 1981 known as the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug offenders Ordinance, 1981, hereinafter called as the Ordinance is challenged on various grounds.2. Shri Gumaste, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 1254 of 1981 contended before us that the Ordinance is ultra vires of the powers of the State legislature, it being beyond legislative competence. He further contended that the Ordinance has been issued in colourable exercise of the powers and in substance amounts to a fraud on Constitution. According to the learned Counsel by enacting this Ordinance, the legislature wants to travel beyond the scope of the National Security Act and this Ordinance has been enacted with the sole intention to rope in the persons who cannot be detained under the said Act viz. National Security Act. The fiction ...
John P.D. Souza Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT185(Bom)
1. The petitioner is providing catering services to the Ocean-going ships. On April 2, 1966, steamship 'JALADHIR' arrived in the Bombay Port. The ship was captained by one Dehyadre, who was known to the petitioner for more than 24 years. Dehyadre visited the place of the petitioner in the city. Thereafter on April 9, 1966, the petitioner drove his car bearing No. BMY 3132 to the Indira Docks and the car was parked near the place where the ship was berthed. The bearer of the Captain Dehyadre brought a suit case neat the car which the petitioner kept in the boot of the car. While the petitioner was waiting near the car, the Customs authorities raided the car and on opening the dicky and the suit case it was noticed that the suit case contained large number of contraband articles including nine liquor bottles. Apart from the suit case, in the dicky two cameras and projectors were noticed. The Customs Authorities seized the goods and prosecuted the petitioner and Dehyadre in the Criminal C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemant Bhagubhai Mafatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)276; [1982]135ITR768(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference, which is under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for the first four assessment years, namely, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63, the following two questions stand referred to us :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant provisions of the trust deed dated 6th April, 1944, of the Hemant Bhagubhai Trust, the income of the trust was includible in the assessable income of the assessee or was it assessable in the hands of the trust ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 30,000, actually received by the assessee in each of the assessment years in question from the trust, was assessable in the hands of the assessee for all or any of the assessment years in question ?'2. The matter lies within a very narrow compass, and the facts may be briefly stated. We are concerned with the Indenture of Trust...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)121; [1982]135ITR762(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question is referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the agreement dated 9th September, 1957, the situs of the contract was in India, and as such profit on sales of bearing materials made by Glacier (that is, Glacier Metal Co. Ltd. of England) to the assessee-company actually accrued in India for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69. The assessee-company, Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'KOEL'), is the statutory agent of a non-resident U. K. Company, Glacier Metal Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Glacier'). KOEL had been manufacturing bearings in India. However, in order to develop their business and to manufacture better quality bearings and for furthering their business, KOEL entered into a collaboration agreement with Glacier on 9th Sep...
Sheshrao Raghoba Suryawanshi and ors. Vs. Sonchand Sobhagmalji Darda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR329; 1982MhLJ84
R.S. Padhye, J. 1. Respondent Sonchand and his grand-son Kishore aged about 20 years constituted a Joint Hindu Family which owned a house situated on Saroj Talkies Chouk, Yavatmal. The house faces north and is situated in business locality. It has got 3 shops facing north. Two shops are of the size '6 x 8 1/2' while one shop is of the size of '10 x 10'. The tenants occupying these 3 shops carry on Hair Cutting business in these shops. Sonchand's son Suresh having predeceased his son Kishore. It appears that Sonchand and his grand-son Kishore are continuing as male coparceners of the joint Hindu family. Sonchand filed 3 applications against the 6 petitioners in the above three special civil applications occupying the three shops claiming that his grand-son Kishore was studying in commerce college but was not good at studies and, therefore, he wanted to settle his grant-son in business by starting a Stationary and General Stores in the three shops in question. He submitted that it was hi...
Abdul HuseIn Mohammedally Master Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1989(25)LC89(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT936(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership concern registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and carry on business of buying and selling of non-ferrous metal.2. On November 26, 1971, two import Licences were issued in favour of Simco Industries (India) for the import of stainless steel pipes and tubes under the provisions of the Import Policy for the year 1971-72. On February 16, 1972, Simco Industries issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioners authorising them to import the goods specified in the licences. On January 28, 1972, one Ebrahim Enterprises having their offices at Hongkong offered to the petitioners a lot of brand new non-magnetic seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes of diameter 1/4' to 1' in 16/26 gauge, of all mixed lengths of 8 and more. By letter dated February 14, 1972, the petitioners offered to purchase 5 tonnes out of the lot. On February 16, 1972, Ebrahim Enterprises confirmed that the goods would be sold to the petitioners at the price of 550/- per to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »