Mumbai Court February 1982 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.
Ewac Alloys Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD651(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on three grounds. The first ground is concerning his order upholding the rejection of the allowance under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of laboratory equipment worth Rs. 94,687 and a building worth Rs. 1,18,452. The facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee spent the following amounts on scientific research:3. Building under construction 1,18,452 ----------- The ITO enquired from the assessee whether the aforesaid assets were used by the assessee for the scientific research relating to the business of the assessee during the previous year. As regards the first item of Rs. 3,08,175 he was satisfied that the laboratory equipment was actually used during the year on scientific research. He, therefore, allowed the assessee's claim under Section 35. In respect of the balance of the expenditure, he rejected the assessee's claim solely on th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas400(Bom); [1983]141ITR67(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The questions referred to us for determination in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a cash credit for the previous year shown in the assessee's bank pass book issued to him by the bank but not shown in the cash book maintained by him for that year does not fall within the ambit of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such the sum so credited is not chargeable to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the deposit of Rs. 10,000 made by the assessee on January 20, 1961, in the bank was not includible under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 ?'2. In the course of the assessment proceed...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Mohammed Yakub Mohd. Ibrahim and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)193; [1983]143ITR67(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, which is a wholesale dealer in plantains, and had returned the total income of Rs. 33,215, was assessed on a total income of Rs. 99,600, after the ITO had rejected the book results. In appeal, the total income was reduced to Rs. 71,450 and as the returned income was less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings in view of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as in force in the relevant assessment year.2. The IAC took the view that the failure to maintain records like purchase and sale vouchers as well as vouchers for expenses constituted a gross and wilful neglect on the part of the assessee within the meaning of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. A penalty of Rs. 50,035 was, therefore, levied.3. When the appeal before the Tribunal was heard, the Tribunal found that a similar question in respect of plantain dealers was dealt with by it in Income-tax Appeal No. 2306 of 1970-71, in which the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. R.S. Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)189; [1982]136ITR1(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN212(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. A return of income to be filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61 was due on August 5, 1960. However, prior to that date, the ITO issued a notice under s. 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act'), on June 28, 1960. In response to this notice, the assessee filed his return on March 29, 1962. He then filed a revised return on March 31, 1964, and another revised return on February 8, 1965. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), were initiated by the ITO. The explanation given by the assessee for the delay in filing the return was his old age and want of figures in respect of the share income from firms. This explanation was, however, rejected by the ITO who found that the assessee had committed default by filing return late without any reasonable cause. The ITO rejected the objection of the assessee that penalty proceedings under the 1961 Act cannot be tak...
Ratnaraj Thangraj Vs. Deputy Controller of Rationing and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR475
D.P. Madon, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated February 6, 1982 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, as the judicial authority appointed under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955), whereby he dismissed the appeal filed is the petitioner, namely, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 1982, as being barred by limitation.2. The petitioner is a dealer in edible oil and owns two shops, one at Ghatkopar and the other at Chembur in Greater Bombay, both being shops under the trade name and style of Ratna Stores. Under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Oil Seeds and Oils (Dealers and Millers) Licensing Order, 1973, read with Clause 3 of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, any trader storing more than 500 kilograms of edible oil is required to take out a licence under the said orders in addition to a gumaste licence...
impex Tube Manufacturing Co. (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD74(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty of Rs. 17,712 levied by the ITO under Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act').2. In this case, the ITO had issued a notice under Section 210 of the Act for payment of advance tax, amounting to Rs. 17,532, and served it on the assessee on 17-8-1973. The assessee filed an estimate in Form No. 29, on 19-3-1974, estimating the income at Rs. 4,00,000 and tax payable thereon at Rs. 2,31,000. The assessee, however, paid advance taxes as under: The assessee filed a return of income on 14-10-1974 declaring an income of Rs. 3,84,485. The tax payable thereon amounted to Rs. 2,31,726. The assessment was made on an income of Rs. 4,69,923 and the tax liability was finally determined, without adjustment of advance tax at Rs. 2,85,549. As, in the opinion of the ITO, the assessee had not complied with the provisions of Section 212(3A) of the Act, he initiated proceedings for levy of pe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)197; [1990]183ITR478(Bom)
M.N. Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred in this reference is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,000 levied under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. On the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee was prevented from paying the advance tax because of financial inability, the question referred is purely a question of fact. The finding recorded by the Tribunal really is a finding fact that there was good and sufficient cause for not paying the advance tax. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. New India Assurance Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)206; [1983]141ITR367b(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN44(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. During the assessment year 1966-67, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1965, the assessee, which is an insurance company was was carrying on general insurance business in and outside India, claimed that it had spent Rs. 25,500 in connection with a campaign against a proposal to nationalise general insurance by way of giving donations and making contributions to certain institutions. This amount included a contribution of Rs. 7,500 to the Forum of Free Enterprise. The ITO has disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 25,500 but in appeal, the claim of the assessee in respect of the contribution of Rs. 7,500 to the Forum of Free Enterprise was allowed on the ground that it was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In respect of the donations/contributions disallowed by the AAC, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal some time in October, 1969, being appeal No. 3445 of 1969-70. In this appeal, the Revenu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Sultn Brothers Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR249(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN49(Bom)
Kanta, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be assessed on the income from the property in question under the provisions of sec. 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66, for which the relevant previous year was the year ending on 31st March, 1965. The assessee was the owner of a building called Shabbir Building. The assessee agreed to sell the said property to Bhanpat Mahadeo and Shanker Hirlal Misra. On 28th August, 1959, the said purchasers paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as earnest money to the assessee. The balance of the consideration for the purchase of the property was paid to the assessee on or about 22nd February,...
F. Rehman Vs. M/S Babson and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ120Bom
ORDER1. This otherwise a simple revision application under S. 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raises an interesting and important point for consideration whether 'any union' unconnected with the establishment of a certain industry can file a complaint of unfair labour practice against an employer under the provisions of the Act.2. The short facts giving rise to this revision application are that one F. Rehman claiming to be the President of All India Labour Union, 45/2nd floor, Air-conditioned Market, Tardeo, Bombay-400 034 (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') filed a complaint of unfair labour practice in the Court of the learned Judge presiding over the Ninth Labour Court, Bombay, being complaint (ULP) No. 99 of 1978, against M/s. Babson and Company, having their office at Hirji Govindji Estate, Thackersey Jivraj Road, Sewree, Bombay-400 015 (hereinafter referred to as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »