Mumbai Court May 1982 Judgments
Albright and Wilson Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1982
Reported in: (1984)8ITD57(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one each by the assessee and the ITO, relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is a non-resident company. It filed its returns of income for the first time for the assessment year 1971-72, inter alia, disclosing a loss of Rs. 7,272. The assessment was completed on 1-7-1975 determining the total income at Rs. 33,120. Return for the assessment year 1972-73 was filed on 10-2-1976 disclosing dividend income on 21,000 equity shares held by it in an Indian company by the name Albright Morarji & Pandit Ltd. During the course of proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO came to learn that the assessee-company has sold its technical know-how relating to its designs, drawings, specifications, etc., and also certain patents to the Indian company under an agreement dated 10-2-1966 and that in consideration thereof the Indian company had allotted 21,000 equity shares of Rs. 50 each out of its initial issue of shares to t...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Hirji Cawasji Jehangir Vs. First Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD132(Mum.)
1. This appeal is by the assessee. It is against the order of the Commissioner dated 12-1-1981 passed under Section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act'). By his impugned order, the Commissioner has cancelled the order of the assessment made by the GTO on 20-3-1979 under Section 15(1) of the Act. The said assessment was completed by the GTO, after accepting the assessee's return filed on 14-5-1970 for the assessment year 1970-71, disclosing a gift of Rs. 40,000 which the assessee had given to one Sri J.M. Malhotra on 24-12-1969.2. In this connection, the GTO came to know that the assessee had sold his two-third interest (one-third each to two trusts) in an immovable property 'Ready Money House', Bombay, on 20-3-1969 for Rs. 7,00,000 and that actual value of his aforesaid interest was much more. Taking the view that the assessee was liable to be taxed on the basis of a 'deemed gift' in respect of the said sale, the GTO issued a notice under Section 16(1) of the Act on 29-9-1974, ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Sippy Films
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD1031(Mum.)
1. This appeal has come up for hearing before a Special Bench, in view of the following question referred to by the President: Whether an assessee who fails to object to an addition or disallowance made in a draft order under Section 144B, loses his rights to agitate against the said addition or disallowance in an appeal filed under Section 246 The above question was obviously referred in view of the conflicting views expressed by different Benches of the Tribunal.2. So far as the question for consideration before the Special Bench is concerned, the facts relevant to the same are very limited and it may be stated now. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business of distribution, production and exhibition of films. It filed a return of income on 27-11-1976. A draft assessment order was served on the assessee on 30-3-1979 under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Since there was variation in the income returned and the income proposed to be assessed by more ...
Tag this Judgment!Trac Sales Corporation Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD62(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25-4-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the previous year of which ended on 30-6-1975.2. The assessee is a partnership firm which started its business, for the first time, during the previous year under consideration, as distributors and selling agents of various products. The assessee was constituted by a partnership deed dated 27-9-1974. The assessee took up the selling agency of Trac Industries and Components Ltd. ('Trac Industries'), Madras, with effect from 4-10-1974. During the previous year under consideration, the assessee earned a commission of Rs. 1,36,231 under the selling agency agreement. After debiting overhead expenses, an income Rs. 1,04,947 was returned by the assessee on 17-12-1976. This return was based on the books of account, which were duly closed on 30-6-1975, following the mercantile basis of accounting.Subsequently, on 26-7-1977, the assessee filed a...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Jethwani Vs. Second Additional Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1982
Reported in: (1984)7ITD649(Mum.)
1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24-9-1980 of the Commissioner, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), who set aside the assessment made by the ITO and thereby directed him to pass a fresh order determining the amount as laid down in clauses (i), (ii), (iia) and (iii) of Sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Act and to retain the assets seized to the extent that they were sufficient to satisfy the aggregate of the amount referred to in Section 132(5)(ii), (iia) and (iii).2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a search of the assessee's premises at Khar on 11-7-1978, diamonds of the value of Rs. 50,750 was seized along with other jewellery valued at Rs. 36,504. In the proceedings under Section 132(5), the ITO considered the evidence and heard the assessee's representative and came to a conclusion that no undisclosed income was involved in the possession of the diamonds and jewellery and, therefore, no tax attached to the a...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Gasper Gonzalves James Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD63(Mum.)
1. The appeal has been filed by the revenue on a short ground. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the assessment regarding capital gains on a broader issue. Before we deal with the appeal, it may be necessary in this case to deal with the cross-objection in the first instance as we will presently show that the same has to be dismissed in Hmine.2. The cross-objection has been filed 245 days late. The assessee came forward with an explanation for the long delay. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as also the learned departmental representative on the question of limitation, in filing the cross-objection. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. The question whether the assessee is liable to tax on capital gains was the basic question involved in the assessment which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). On this question the Commissioner (Appeals) negatived the assessee's plea, though on another aspect th...
Tag this Judgment!Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD623(Mum.)
6. The second and last ground in the assessee's appeal is against the non-allowance of development rebate on cleavage condenser and refrigerator condenser, the respective cost of which was Rs. 7,58,466 and Rs. 69,918. There is no dispute that these two machineries were not actually put into use before 1-6-1975. Observing that by a Notification dated 28-5-1971 the grant of development rebate was discontinued in respect of the plants installed after 31-5-1974 and that the provisions for the grant of development rebate in some exceptional cases in terms of Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, were also not applicable in this case, the ITO disallowed the assessee's claim for development rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with this issue in paragraph 7 of his order. He has observed that on carefully going through the reasons recorded by the IAC, he fully agreed with the department's stand in this behalf.7. It is stated before us by Sri Dastur, the learned counsel for the asses-se...
Tag this Judgment!Megji Mathardas (Huf) Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD904(Mum.)
1. These five appeals by the assessee, a HUF, relate to its assessments for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee-HUF owned certain immovable properties in Bombay. The value of these properties was shown at Rs. 3,50,000 for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The same was shown at Rs. 8,03,000 for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the basis of a valuation report given by K.G.Kapadia & Co., Government approved valuer. In the light of the report, the value shown for the earlier years in the original returns filed by the assessee, was suitably enhanced for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-08 to Rs. 4,78,000, Rs. 6,00,000 and Rs. 7,34,000, respectively, by filing the revised returns. The WTO after going through the valuation report submitted by the assessee, accepted the valuation of the immovable properties as shown by the assessee for all the five years under consideration.3. Subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.C. Lakiri and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT686(Bom)
1. The petitioner Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. challenges in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the validity of the Order dated 19th June, 1974, purportedly passed under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the demand on account of short levy of Export Duty referred to therein.2. The admitted facts are as under : Petitioner, a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carries on the business of mining iron, manganese and ferromanganese in the territory of Goa and of exporting the respective ores. On 25th June, 1974, petitioner submitted to the Customs Authorities a part Shipping Bill for loading 5,000 tonnes of lumpy iron ore in the vessel m.v. Jessica and by letter of the same date submitted a Bank Draft in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- to cover the export duty payable in respect of the said part shipment. Petitioner made reference in the same letter to the Notice No. 40.53/72-AP iss...
Tag this Judgment!income-Tax Officer Vs. Rookman'S (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD78(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue. The first ground of appeal relates to relief under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), given by the Commissioner (Appeals) on a part of commission paid to directors. The ITO disallowed a part of the commission under Section 40(c) of the Act and, accordingly, he restricted the allowance under Section 35B also to that amount. The Commissioner (Appeals), on the other hand, took the view that the assessee is entitled to the claim under Section 35B in respect of entire commission paid to the directors.2. It is argued by the learned departmental representative that once disallowance is made under Section 40(c) relating to the commission paid to the directors, a claim under Section 35B must be confined to that amount and not to the entire amount claimed by the assessee as expenditure incurred by it. The argument proceeds on the basis that when the Legislature has restricted the allowance of expenditure in a particular manner, the same sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »