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.
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)210; [1982]138ITR562(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN108(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act') in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 14,000 representing the value of the shares in the Bombay State Financial Corporation held by the assessee should be excluded from its net wealth, on the ground that this amount was exempted under the provisions of cl. (xix) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 of the said Act. This claim of the assessee has been rejected by the WTO, the AAC as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 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 applicant is entitled to deduction from the net wealth of the sum of Rs. 14,000 representing the value of shares of the Bombay State Financial Corporation under section 5(1)(xix) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. It is beyond dispute that the said shares in the Bombay S...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Bangalore Vs. Aleixo P. Velho and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)220; [1983]143ITR372(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN112(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 26(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958, (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioners of Gift-tax. The questions referred to us for determination in this reference are s follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that in the instant case the properties in question were owned by the husband and wife as tenants-in-common ?(2) Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment made on the body of individuals is bad in law ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The respondents-assesses to this reference are Aleixo P. Velho and Smt. B. G. Velho, his wife, who have been taxed as a body of individuals. The relevant assessment year for the purpose of gift-tax is 1964-65. Aleixo and his wife, Smt. B. C. Velho, married under the ...
Western India Paper and Board Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)242; [1982]137ITR525(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN210b(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the tax authorities were justified in disallowing the assessee's contribution to the assessee during the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 167-68 ?'2. The assessee-company is a private limited company and in the relevant assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of mill boards out of waste paper. On 31st March, 1957, the Bombay Industries Pvt. Ltd. were the agents and secretaries of the assessee-company. With effect from 1st April, 1957, two managing directors were appointed by resolution dated 28th March, 1957. These two managing directors were Mr. S. N. Dey and Mr. Kasambhai Abdul Raoof Maniar. Their remuneration was Rs. 3,000 each per month. The resolution of ap...
Kaira District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kishore S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom66; 1982(1)BomCR509
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the original defendants against the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in S. Constitution. Suit No. 2004 of 1981, on 7th of August 1981, granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff who claims to be a Jain and strict vegetarian, filed a suit against the defendants praying for a declaration that Amul Cheese is not a purely vegetarian product and that they should not sell or market it as vegetarian product. In paras 6 and 7 of the plaint, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defts. were advertising the cheese as Amul Cheese Tops vegetables' meaning thereby to be best amongst the vegetarian products. According to the plaintiff by the said advertisement issued by the defts. they have directly or indirectly represented and are continuing to represent to the general public and the Jain community in particular including the plaintiff, that Amu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›