Mumbai Court September 1982 Judgments
Desai Lallubhai Construction Co. Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD213(Mum.)
1. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee-company is entitled to depreciation under Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of laying down pipelines for the Municipal Corporation. It maintains its accounts on mercantile basis. For the assessment year 1976-77, it claimed initial depreciation under Section 32(1)(vi), for the machinery purchased and used by it in its business. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessce on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in the business of 'manufacture' or 'production' of any of the articles specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Act. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the order of the ITO. The assessee has, therefore, filed the present appeal.3. Before me, the learned representative of the assessee contended that the laying down of pipes, after joining them together, tantamoimted to 'manufacture' or 'production' of articles within the meaning o...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Western India Bakers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD675(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 17-2-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1978-79, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1978.2. The only ground taken in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the ITO's order granting relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and directing the ITO to recompute the relief in the light of the Supreme Court decision to be delivered in future.3. The assessee is a private limited company. It was entitled to relief under Section 80J. It claimed to calculate such relief on the gross assets without deducting the liabilities as was held in the case of Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 909 (Cal.). The ITO did not agree. He referred to the recent amendment of Section 80J with retrospective effect and calculated the relief on the net assets after deducting the liabilities to third parties. The ITO completed the assessment accord...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti L. Gandhi Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD295(Mum.)
1. These three appeals, filed by the same assessee, involve a common question for consideration. They are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a mentally retarded person. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78, she claimed deduction under Section 8OU of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In support of her claim, the assessee produced the following medical certificate :Dr. V.K. Habbu Plot 70, Vallabh Nivas, MBBS Sion West, Bombay-22 Miss Jyoti Lalchand Gandhi aged about 10 years, residing with her parents at 9-AWoodIand, 67 Peddar Road, Bombay 26 is mentally retarded since birth. Her disability is permanent. She cannot be engaged in any gainful occupation.3. The ITO observed that deduction under Section 80U was allowable only if the assessee was totally blind or that he/she suffers from permanent physical disability which had the effect of reducing substantially his/her capacity to engage in a gainful employment or...
Tag this Judgment!Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. and Another Vs. N.N. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)60; [1984]145ITR435(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN301(Bom)
1. Under the provisions of s. 280ZB of the I.T. Act, 1961, where any company engaged in the manufacture or production of any of the articles mentioned in the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, is in respect of its profits and gains attributable to such manufacture or production liable to pay any tax for the assessment year commencing on 1st April, 1965 (as the base year), and for any one or more of the five assessment years next following the base year, and the tax for such succeeding year exceeds the tax payable for the base year, then the company shall be granted a tax credit certificate for an amount equal to twenty per cent. of such excess provided that the amount of the tax credit certificate shall not for any assessment year exceed ten per cent. of such tax payable by the company for that year. Under s. 280ZE of the Act the Central Government is empowered to frame schemes to be called tax credit certificate schemes in relation to such tax cre...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Nilkant Kale and anr. Vs. Shantabai Dattatraya Deshpande and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom172; 1982(1)BomCR952
1. A somewhat interesting question arises in this revision application. After the order was passed against the defendants that the suit against them should proceed ex parte because no written statement was filed on the due date, a document purporting to be the written statement of the Advocate for the defendants, was sought to be filed in the Court together with the application for taking the same on record and for setting aside the previous order directing the suit to proceed exparte. that written statement was not taken on record. In the technical sence, the application was rejected and an exparte decree was passed against the defendants.2. In appeal, the ex parte decree had been set aside and the defendants were directed to file their written statement in the trial Court on 7-12-1981. But on that day the defendants sought to file not the same previous document but a different document signed by the defendants as well as their Advocate as their written statement. The plaintiff object...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanatilal Mohanlal Vs. Narandas and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom226
1. This is a revision application filed by a retired partner of the firm against which firm money decree has been passed by the Court. After passing of the decree, the decree-holder wanted to execute the same against the petitioner on the ground that the was a partner of the firm at the time of the suit transaction. The petitioner claims to have retired from the partnership. The plaintiff filed the requisite application to the Executing Court under Court. 21, R. 50 (2 of the Civil P. C. for bringing on record the petitioner and other partners of the defendants firm so that he could execute the decree against them individually. This was done by him by taking out a notice in that behalf. This notice was opposed by the present petitioner on various grounds. all of which have been negatived by the trial Court and an order has been passed that the execution should proceed against the present petitioner. It is this order which the petitioner wants to be revised by this Court.2. The facts rel...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Memant Bhagubhai Magatlal Vs. N. Rama Iyer, Gift-tax Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Bom)179; [1983]144ITR737(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN509(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This writ petitioner concerned the method to be adopted for the valuation of share of private limited companies for the purposes of gifts-tax.2. The share are of Mafatlal Gagalbhai & Co. Pvt Ltd,. and SUrat Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Under the articles of association of these companies the shares thereof are not transferable unless the rights of pre-emption conferred thereby have been exhausted. Thus, every member thereof who intends to transfer his shares is required to give notice in writing to the company board to his intention, specifying the details of th shares and the proposed sale price. In the even of the sale price not being agreed upon, the auditors of the company must fix fair sealing value thereof. The board must then given noticed to the members of the number and price of the share to be sold and invite them to state the share between interested members,. If the shares are not sold within there months, e intending seller may what shares they ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar S/O. Dhundiraj Joshi Vs. Jhunnulal S/O. Hariram Yadao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR87; 1983MhLJ359
Ginwala, J.1. The question which arises in this revision application is with regard to the scope of the power as conferred on a Court under the provisos to Sub-section (5) of Section 21 and Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Specific Relief. Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint so as to include a claim for compensation and refund of earnest money in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. This question arises on the following facts.2. The applicant-plaintiff has instituted a suit against the non-applicant defendants for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house. In the plaint as originally filed the plaintiff had merely claimed specific performance of the said contract, but had not included the relief for compensation and refund of earnest money. During the pendency of the suit on March 5, 1976 the plaintiff applied for amendment of plaint so as to include the claim for compensation and refund of earn...
Tag this Judgment!Janata Works P. Ltd. (In Liquidation) : Dhanraj G. Bhatia Vs. Janata W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas229(Bom)
Rele, J.1. The official liquidator has submitted his report for directions whether he should take out a judge's summons against M/s. Janata Industries for setting aside execution of the eviction decree passed by the court of small causes at Bombay.2. The company had five galas, viz., Galas nos. 16 to 20 in premises at 162, Tulsi Pipe Road, Lower Parel, bombay. The official liquidator took possession of 4 galas, viz., galas Nos. 16 to 19. He could not take possession of gala No.20 as the occupant of the gala raised a dispute.3. Prior to the winding-up of the company, the landlord of the said Building, M/s. Janata Industries , Filed a R.A.E. Suit No. 1527/57664 of 1978, against the company for ejectment. On the winding-up of the company, the suit was continued by the landlords after obtaining leave of this court under s. 446 of the companies Act, 1956.4. In or about july, 1979, there was a fire in the vicinity of the said galas and gala Nos. 16 and 17 were damaged in that fire. The suit,...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gopibai Ghanshamda Advani and Others Vs. Food Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas660(Bom)
Gadgil J.1. These two appeals arise from an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 1979, whereunder an amount of Rs. 34,400 has been directed to be paid to the applicant by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 with future interest at a certain rate. The original applicants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') have filed First Appeal No. 82 of 9182 claiming additional amount of Rs. 80,000. They have also claimed that the amount of compensation should be made recoverable from the New India Insurance Co. Bombay (original opponent No.3). The other Appeal No. 110 of 1982 is filed by the Food Corporation of India, Bombay, and its driver, Shri P.H. More (original opponent No.2) challenging the award of compensation made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Ahmednagar.2. Before the hearing of these appeals began, Mr. Rajani, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No. 82 of 1982, made a statement that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »