Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
CadglIn A. D'Souza and Anr. Vs. Harichandrai Vanjumal Sangtani and Anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR313
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners who were originally the opposite parties in proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Respondent No. 1 to this petition was the first party who commenced the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 6-6-1981 before the Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay, Court No. 1, Old Customs House. On 13-6-1975, the Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order as required by section 145 and proceeded with the enquiry. The petitioner was joined as opposite party to that proceedings. The enquiry was completed by the Executive Magistrate and he passed the final order on June 22, 1981. The Executive Magistrate held that the respondent No. 1 was in possession of the disputed premises as mentioned in his order. 2. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay rejected the revision applic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Badische AnilIn and So ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)290; [1984]146ITR393(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee-company (hereinafter referred to an 'OBSF'), which is incorporated in West Germany, had developed a process known as Winkler process used for gasifying certain fuels. It entered into an agreement with another non-resident company, namely M/s. Pintsch Bamag AG, West Germany (hereinafter referred to as 'Bamag'). Under this agreement Bamag was entitled to license the use of the Winkler process by third parties and Bamag was to pay a royalty as per art. 7 of the agreement.2. Bamag entered into a contract with a company in India, namely M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. for construction of a chemical plant in which the Winkler process was used. The OBSF receive Rs. 1,47,333 on account of royalty under the agreement with Bamag. This amount was received in India and not in Germany and was deposited by OBSF in the State Bank of India by opening an account in the bank. After making an allowance of 20% for estimated expenses attributable to the work done by OBSF...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Sassoon J. David and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR390(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN63(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. We propose to set out the facts very briefly, as all the relevant facts in respect of the transactions out of which the question in this reference arises have been set out by a Division Bench of this court in Sassoon J. David & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]98ITR50(Bom) .3. The assessee is a private limited company and was incorporated in 1922. Twenty-five per cent. of the shares of the company were held by Sir Percival David in his individual capacity, while 75 per cent. of the shares were held by a trust of which he was the sole beneficiary. One Alwyn Ezra joined the company in 1925. In 1931 he was appointed as a director. The only other director was Sir Percival David, who was out of India at all material times, and Alwyn Ezra was in the sole charge of the business of the company from 1937 to 1943. He held a general power-of-attorney on behalf of the assessee-company. Between 16th March, 1943, a...
Tag this Judgment!Siemens India Ltd. and Another Vs. K. Subramanian, Ito, Companies Circ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)23; [1983]143ITR120(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN146(Bom)
Madon, J.1. Siemens India Ltd., a public company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and one of its shareholders have filed this writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the ITO, Companies Circle IV(4), Bombay, and the Union of India to set aside an order of provisional assessment dated December 30, 1974, made under s. 7 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (7 of 1964) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), and a notice of demand dated January 14, 1975, issued in pursuance of the said assessment order.2. Under s. 4 of the Surtax Act, every company is liable to pay for every assessment year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1964, surtax in respect of so much of its chargeable profits of the previous year or previous years, as the case may be, as exceed the statutory deduction, at the rate or rates specified in the Third Schedule to the Surtax Act. Under cl. (5) of s. 2, the expression 'chargeable profit...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Narayan Patil Vs. Chhagan Devchand Patil of Shirud and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR87
D.M. Rege, J.1. This is a First Appeal under the Bombay Public Trusts Act by the original applicant against the order of the District Judge, Dhule, dated 10th September, 1981. The Appeal arises as under :2. There is a trust called Kalika Vidya Prasarak Sanstha at Dhule registered under the Bombay Public Trusts. The said Trust has one of its objects to run school's and educational institutions. It is the case of the applicant that prior to September 1979, one Chhagan Devchand Patil, respondent No. 1 was the President of the Managing Committee of the Trust. On 7th September, 1979, he handed over his resignation as the President to a clerk and the Secretary of the Trust, one R.P. Patil. On 9th September, 1979, the said Patil gave a notice of the meeting to all the members of the Managing Committee to be held on 16th September, 1979. One of the items to be considered at the meeting was the resignation of the said Chhagan Patil, Respondent No. 1 as the President of the Managing Committee. A...
Tag this Judgment!Chemicals and Fibres of India Ltd Vs. M.K.N. Pillai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)97; [1984]146ITR280(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this writ petition the assessee, which is a public limited company, seeks to quash several notices dated 4th March, 1976, issued u/s. 148 read with s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and similar notices issued u/s. 8 of the Surtax Act. Consequential relief is also sought.2. It would appear from the annexure to the affidavit-in-reply of the ITO, Company Circle VI(5), Bombay, that the assessee-company had claimed deduction u/s. 80I and extra development rebate u/s. 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the ground that manufacture of polyster fibre was an activity covered by item No. 18 of the Fifth and Six Schedules to the I.T. Act. The original ITO dealing with the assessee accepted the said claim of the assessee and completed the assessment. Item 18 mentions 'Petrochemicals including corresponding products manufactured from other basic raw materials like calcium carbide, ethyl alcohol or hydrocarbons from other sources'. In 1976 the successor-ITO of the said circle came to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Gokak Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)313; [1983]142ITR525(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN199(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 18 of the Companies Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as 'The Companies Surtax Act'), read with as. 256 (1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred to us in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Staff Gratuity Reserve of Rs. 1,57,967 as on 1st January, 1963, constitutes a reserve as a contemplated in rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The relevant facts can be very shortly stated. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1964-65. The reference relates to the computation of the capital of the assessee-company for surtax purposes in terms of r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act. The capital required to be computed is as on 1st January, 1963, being the 1st day of the relevant previous years namely, 1st January, 1963 to 31st December, 1963. Out of the profits of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-v Vs. Bombay Master Printers A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR339(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN314(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference was called out yesterday, when it was noticed that no books were supplied to the assessee or their counsel. It was, therefore, adjourned to today to enable the Department to make the books available to the counsel for the assessee who were appearing in the reference. When the matter is called out, Mr. Mehta, who has appeared on behalf of the assessee, has again made a grievance that no books have been supplied and he is, therefore, unable to go on with the reference.2. Time and again it has been pointed out by us to the learned counsel for the Revenue that no attention is being paid by the Department or whoever is concerned with the conduct of these references to the fact as to whether the assessee have been served and whether books have been supplied to the counsel for the assessees. Needless to say that more than 80 per cent. of the Income-tax References are made at the instance of the Revenue. We are now dealing with the references of 1974. They have ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)293; [1984]146ITR368(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN130(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The questions referred to us for our determination in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether there is any evidence to show that the cotton of the value of Rs. 1,06,066 (Rupees one lakh six thousand and sixty-six) represented the property of the applicant and that the value thereof was the income of the applicant assessable under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the applicant had not explained the source of its acquisition ? (2) Whether the finding that the sum of Rs. 1,06,066 (Rupees one lakh six thousand and sixty-six) represented income of the applicant is based on suspicion, surmises and/or improper consideration of the evidence on record and is, therefore, unjustified in law ?'2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and one Kacharulal Tejmal, after whom the HUF is named, was the karta of the HUF. The...
Tag this Judgment!Nevandram Javermal Vs. Devikabai Haridas Gandhi and ors. and R. Sunder ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom589
ORDER1 .This is a chamber summons mainly to bring on record the respondents as defendants Nos.1 (a) and 1 (b) , as the executrices of the last will and testament of the 1st defendant, in the will and testament of the 1st defendant, in the place and stead of the 1st defendant who, it appears was dead even at the time of the institution of the suit.2. A few facts are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy raised before me. The defendant No.1 was the owner of a unit in an industrial estate, called A-Z Industrial Estate at Ferguson Road, Lower Parel in Bombay. Defendant No.2, firm, carried on business in the said unit on the basis of a leave and licence agreement. In Sept., 1976, by a written agreement, defendant No.2 agreed to sell to the plaintiff its running business and the benefit of the tenancy rights which, according to defendant No.2, it had In the said unit and further agreed that if it acquired the ownership of the said unit from defendant No.1 the same would also be t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »