Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Nila Products Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)405; [1984]148ITR99(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN42(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 20,935 was a permissible deduction ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 47,500 was assessable as capital gains ?'2. The assessee-company carries on the business of manufacture of chemicals in their factories at Bombay and Ahmedabad. By lease deed dated March 7, 1969, the assessee-company took one shed on lease which was situated on a part of plot No. 100 of Rakhiyal Town Planning Scheme in Ahmedabad District. The lease was for a period of 11 months and 29 days. One of the terms of the lease was that the assessee-lessee was entitled to keep or install machine or furniture and fixtures permanently in the shed leased out, and the assessee was entitled to make permanent alternations and additions in the shed. Assessee was entitled to put win...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Tyres Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1982
Reported in: [1983]6ITD693(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. S. Viswanathan, Accountant Member - This is an appeal by the assessee a limited company, who has been treated as the agent of a non-resident company by name Uniroyal Inc., USA. There is no dispute that the assessee is the agent. The point at dispute is that the amount remitted by the Indian agent, Premier Tyres Ltd., to Uniroyal Inc. is not income accruing or arising in India. It is also not income which could be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Therefore, nothing is taxable.2. Premier Tyres Ltd., the Indian company, had entered into an agreement with the American company for technical services. There was an agreement subsisting between these two companies, dated 23-2-1962, but that agreement was terminated 10 years later. A new agreement was made out on 1-4-1974 between them which governs the assessment year we are concerned with. Article II 2-1 provides for the technical assistance to be given by the American company and it reads as follows :'UNIROYAL will furnish...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. B.S. Badve and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)150; [1982]138ITR682(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN350(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment years with which we are concerned are assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58 and 1960-61 to 1965-66.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :B. S. Badve, the karta of the HUF of S. T.Badve of Malegaon, derived income in the previous years relevant to the aforesaid assessment years from the exhibition of films in two theatres, from running a flour mill and also from the weaving of cloth on 15 power looms. The assessee claimed to have maintained an account till March 21, 1959, when there was a fire in the premises where the books were kept and all the account books were destroyed by the fire. Thereafter, the assessee did not write account books. The returns in respect of the income of the aforesaid assessment years were field on the basis of estimates. In the case of the cinema theatres, the assessee showed the receipts which were verifi...
Tag this Judgment!Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR628(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN264(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, which is a limited company, has made a net profit of Rs. 4,78,836-9-1 for the previous year ending on 30th September, 1954. The report of the directors submitted to the shareholders on 7th June, 1955, proposed an apportion of Rs. 4,00,000 as provision for taxation and other contingency and Rs. 75,000 as divided at 7 1/2% free of income-tax. The balance of the profit of Rs. 18,274-13-0 was proposed to be carried to the next year.2. The assessee-company was however, assessed on the total income of Rs. 6,58,390 for the assessment year 1955-56, for which the relevant previous year was the one ending on 30th September, 1954. After adjusting the tax payable on the is amount the ITO worked out the distributable profit at Rs. 3,94,701. AS the amount of Rs. 75,000 declared by way of divided was less than 60% of the distributable profit the ITO called upon the assessee to show cause whys the provision of s. 23A of the Indian I. T. ACt, m 1922, should be be invoked,...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)306; [1984]145ITR793(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN178(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd, Bombay, carries on business in tea, coffee and timber. It has branches outside India. Employees working in the foreign branches earned salaries outside India and were paid by the branches in which they worked.2. In the course of assessments for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, for which respective previous years ended on May 31, 1964, and May 31, 1965, a common question had arisen pertaining to the disallowance in the matter of expenditure incurred by the assessee in providing perquisites t its employees. During those years, the ITO disallowed the sums of Rs. 68,543 and Rs. 1,50,119 respectively as being in excess of 1/5th of the total expenditure referred to in s. 40(c)(iii) of the Act. That view was confirmed by the AAC, in appeal filed by the assessee. Its contention was that the ITO should have first calculated the value of the perquisites in terms of the relevant Rules and if such value was in excess of...
Tag this Judgment!Gajaraben Prakashchand Mehta Vs. Ratilal Phulchand Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR151
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the original plaintiff-landlady whose suit for recovery of possession of suit premises on the ground of her bona fide and reasonable personal requirements which was decreed by the trial Court has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. There were a few other questions raised by the plaintiff in the trial Court. But none of them is urged before me in this petition. The only question that falls for determination is as to whether the view taken by the learned Joint Judge in appeal holding that the plaintiff's requirement of the premises was not bona fide or reasonable is supportable or not.2. The few relevant facts are as follows :The suit premises consist of Municipal House No. 363 at Baramati. It is a one storied building and the entire building is in possession of the respondent as a tenant and he is using the same as a godown. There was some controversy on the question as to whether the suit house was let out initially to the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kantirani Jayanarayan Mangal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR429; 1982CriLJ1454; 1982MhLJ822
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the original accused under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging of the order of conviction passed against the accused for the contravention of the provisions under S. 7 read with S. 3(d) of the drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Act No. 21 of 1954) (herein after referred to as the 'Drugs Act'). The conviction was recorded on November 29, 1978 in Criminal case No. 82/S of 1978 and the same was unheld in the revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by his judgment and order dated January 8, 1981 in Revision Applications No. 11 of 1979.2. The accused Amt. Kamatitrani J. Mangal is the sole properties of a shop called M/s. Breast Beauty Stores. His store was established in the year 1974. The accused is selling the article known as Bust Developer and while advertising this Bust Developer which is an instrument to be used for proper development of breasts of a woman, it is alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Mehta Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD795(Mum.)
1. The assessee, who has income from salary, dividends, etc., sold in the year under consideration gold and shares of two companies held by him. It is common ground that all these assets are not short-term assets. There is no dispute also about the full value of the consideration received by the assessee in this case and the amount deductible as the cost of acquisition. The difference between the consideration and the cost was as below:- Consideration 66,940- Cost 19,712 47,2282100, shares of Deepak Nitrate Ltd.- Consideration 5,70,000- Cost 2,10,000 3,60,0002,000 shares of Sodium Metal (P.) Ltd.- Consideration 40,000- Cost 2,00,000 1,60,000 (loss) There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 5,000 allowable under section SOT. The dispute is about the amount of deduction further allowable at 40 per cent of the long-term capital gain.2. According to the assessee, the amount of deduction is to be worked out at 40 per cent of each of the amounts of long-term ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Shri Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas42(Bom)
1. The petitioners are seeking directions (i) that the directors appointed by them under s. 408(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, by order dated November 17, 1973, continue to be the directors of the respondent company until they have completed their full of three years, and (ii) the board of directors elected by the company requires confirmation of their appointment under s. 408(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The background of the petition and the facts leading to its filing can be narrated briefly as follows :3. By order dated November 17, 1973, made by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Company Affairs, passed under s. 408(1) two directors were appointed for a period of three years. The validity of the said order was challenged in a writ petition being Misc. Petition No. 1306 of 1973, filed by the company and its two directors against the Union of India and others. By an order dated January 10, 1974, the directors appointed by the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Maganlal Harjiwan Tambodia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR516
ORDER1. The State of Maharashtra has filed his revision against the order of discharge passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, dated April 20, 1981.2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the prosecution in this case. The principal point which arises for consideration in this revision relates to the qualification of the Food Inspector, who investigated the case and launched the prosecution against the respondents-accused. Respondent-accused 6 is the firm and respondents 1 to 5 are its partners dealing in sale of spices.3. On January 4, 1979. Inspector S. K. Dolas, who is P.W. 3 in this case seized certain samples in the presence of the panchas and launched the present prosecution against the respondents-accused for the contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The record shows that one Yadav, Food Inspector has filed the complaint in the Court an the said Dolas P.W. 3 who was the Investigating Officer has not commenced these proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »