Mumbai Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Gem and Jewellery Expor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)57; [1983]143ITR579(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN13(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee is a company established for the advancement of an object of general public utility, i.e., to support, protect maintain, increase and promote exports of gems and jewellery including pearls, precious and semi-precious stones, diamonds, synthetic stones, imitation jewellery, gold, and non-gold jewellery and articles thereof. It was to undertake market studies in individual foreign countries and carry out such other object as may be necessary for the promotion of export of gems and jewellery. There is no dispute that the assessee-company is a company whose income is applicable only to charitable purposes as defined in s. 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee-company receives grants-in-aid from the Govt. of India. Some of the conditions on which these grants-in-aid are given as follows :(i) The funds should be kept with the State Bank of India; the total expenditure should not be more than the expenditure approved by the Central Govt. for each protect; sep...
Chemicals and Fibres India Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR677; 1982(10)ELT917(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The only question which arises in this petition if whether polyester chips of textile grade manufactured by the petitioners are assessable to excise duty under Item 15A of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act').2. The Petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are manufacturers of synthetic fibres. In their factory at Thane-Belapur Road, they manufacture polyester staple fibre which is marketed under the trade name 'Terene'. The process of manufacturing the synthetic fibre, as set out in the petition, is not in dispute. The raw materials for the manufacture of the synthetic fibre are dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol shortly called DMT and ethylene glycol. These raw materials are initially reached in an pester interchange vessel in the presence of a catalyst and heat in order to form a monomer. After the monomer is formed, a delustrant titanium dioxide is added to import ...
Sugrabai Alibhai and Others Vs. Amtee Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas734(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. In this company application, the applicants, who are respondents Nos. 2 to 8 in Company Petition No. 714 of 1981, have asked for inspection of the entire records of the company as per prayer (a) of the judge's summons.2. The company petition is filed by three petitioners under ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. Admittedly, petitioner No. 2 was in charge of the management of the company from 1967 to July, 1981. The second petitioner has also challenged his removal as managing director of the company from July, 1981. The entire records of the company is admittedly in the possession of the petitioners. The petitioners hold 1/6th of the issued shares of the company. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 hold 2/3rds of the issued shares of the company. The business of the company consists of management and dealing in certain immovable properties in Bombay.3. The petitioners have challenged the right of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 to obtain inspection of the entire records of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Shree Changdeo Sugar M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)114; [1983]143ITR469(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN210(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), in which one question has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner and the order at the instance of the assessee. The question referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner, which we have numbered as question No. 1, runs as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of interest by the assessee on the moneys borrowed for the payment of dividend is an allowance deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee, which we have numbered as question No. 2, runs as follows :'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, payment of interest by the assessee on the moneys borrowed for the payment of taxes is an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The assessee is a company incorp...
Favre-leuba and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)388; [1983]141ITR494(Bom); [1983]14TAXMAN65(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year in question is 1958-59, for which the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1958 in February, 1958, a Income-tax. The assessee-company was making provision every year in respect of its contribution to the fund out of its profits, though the fund itself was not recognised till February, 1958. The total amount appropriated up to March 31, 1957, was Rs. 1,97,109. Such provision was however disallowed by the Department in the computation of the income of the assessee in the assessments up to the assessment year 1957-58. In the year ending March 31, 1958, the assessee debited sum of Rs. 15,079,50 to the P&L; a/c of that year although payment of Rs. 37,248 was made by way of gratuity in the year ending March 31, 1958. The amount standing to the credit of the gratuity fund on March 31, 1958, was Rs. 1,74,940. This amount was paid over to the trustees of the function March 31, 1958. Out of this amount of...
Union of India and Others Vs. International Tractor Company of India L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: 1985(22)ELT780(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India against the judgment dated June 28 1977 E.L.T. 133 delivered by Mr. Justice Rege allowing the petition filed by International Tractor Company of India Limited seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing certain orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise whereby excise duty was levied on the tractors manufactured by the petitioners by including in the assessable thereof, the value of the hour meter and the wheel weight.2. The facts which have been given to rise to the finding of the petition are not in dispute and the short question which requires answer is whether it is open for the Department while assessing value of the tractors manufactured by the respondent Company to include the value of certain accessories. It is not in dispute between the parties that the duty is payable on the tractors under Item 34(3)(a) of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is ...
Swan Mills Ltd. and Another Vs. H.R. Amarnani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1982
Reported in: 1991LC306(Bombay); 1982(10)ELT445(Bom)
1. By the impugned order dated November 20, 1978, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, held that the products covered by the classification list filed by the petitioners herein Messrs Swan Mills Limited in respect of unprocessed Rayon multifold yarn and H.D.P.E. yarn was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 and consequently duty at 5% ad valorem on the entire value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act was payable by the manufacturer. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said order on various grounds set out in the petition. After notice of this petition was served upon the respondents, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued to the petitioners notice (Exhibit G to this petition) to show cause why central excise duty as stated in paragraph (a) of the said notice and as to why penalty as stated in paragraph (b) of the said notice should not be demanded and recover...
Kikabhai Abdulali Rangawala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)313; [1982]138ITR455a(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN92(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The questions referred to us in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as : the said ACt'), made at the instance of the Commissioner, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the levy of penalty of Rs. 20,0000 and Rs. 10,000 for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 respectively ?'2. The relevant facts, somewhat summarized, are as follows :3. The assessment year with which we are concerned are assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in hardware, cement sheets and so on. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1966-67, declaring the income at Rs. 75,544. Along with this return, copies of cement trading account, personal account of the partners, etc., were filed, but no balance-sheet appeared to have been defiled along with the return of income. The herein was adjourned from 13th June, ...
Vaijnath Ranba Gavli Vs. Bhanudas Chokoba Rode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ298Bom; 1982MhLJ775
1. The respondent filed a claim against the present revision-petitioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and his claim was granted by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Thereafter, the respondent started execution proceeding in the Civil Court by filing Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1977. After having failed to recover the amount, he applied in Civil Court for detaining the present revision-petitioner in civil prison and accordingly, the present petitioner was kept in civil prison for 21 days and was thereafter released. There is no dispute about this in the present revision application. Even after the release of the revision-petitioner, the amount of the respondent was not recovered and so again on 4.9.1981, the present respondent filed another application in the Civil Court for rear resting the petitioner and for detaining him in civil prison for another period. This application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner, but on 3.11.1981, the learned Civil Judge, Seni...
indira J. Kaushik Vs. R.M. Salunke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR825
S.C. Pratap, J.1. A firm under the name and style of M/s. J. Philips Manufacturing Co. was carrying on for the past several years business in Bombay is its office premises situated at Bombay Mutual Annexe, Gunbow Street, Bombay. For the purpose of its business, the firm had acquired and had been allotted two telephone installations with requisite instruments and connections. This was in or about the year 1953. All requisite charges and expenses in that behalf had been paid. The numbers allotted were 263352 and 263353. These telephones throughout stood and continued to stand in the name of M/s. J. Philips Manufacturing Co. On 22nd January, 1971, the proprietress Miss Elveisa Olivia Couth of the aforesaid firm assigned the business of the said firm as a going concern together with goodwill, stock in trade and all assets and also benefit of tenancy rights to one John Francis Lima. This was by a registered deed of assignment. The telephones continued to stand in the name of the said firm i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »