Mumbai Court August 1983 Judgments
First Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. P.H. Harilela
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD645(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the case did not fall in the ambit of Explanation 4 to Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957('the Act') and, consequently, in cancelling the penalties levied by the WTO under Section 18(1)(c) for each of the six years under consideration.2. During the years under consideration, the assessee's wealth consisted of one-fourth share in an immovable property known as Harilela House and also a Flat No. 51A in Anita Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay. The assessee disclosed the value of the one-fourth interest in the Harilela House at Rs. 1,54,528 for each of the six years. The WTO, however, valued this one-fourth interest at Rs. 4,12,685 for the first two years, at Rs. 4,18,445 for the next three years and at Rs. 4,14,645 for the last year under consideration. He valued this property as per the departmental Valuation Officer's report under Section 16A of the Act. Likewise, in res...
Tag this Judgment!Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC217; 1983(14)ELT2177(Bom); [1983]141ITR399A(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a portion of the order passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the revisional powers conferred under the provisions of the Customs Act on October 13/20, 1979 is challenged.2. The facts which gave rise to the filing of this petition are required to be briefly stated. The petitioners are manufacturers of Fluorescent Starter Switches and for the purposes of manufacture required lead glass tubings. One Parmanand Maneklal & Company had business and technical collaboration with Messrs. Kupfer Limited, United Kingdom. On April 16, 1962, the petitioners got the business of Parmanand Maneklal & Company transferred to them and continued purchasing raw materials from M/s. Kupfer Limited. On January 17, 1972, the petitioners placed an order with M/s. Kupfer Limited for 30 tonnes of lead glass tubing. The first consignment of 164 cases arrived on March 11, 1973 and in respect of tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)12; [1990]181ITR527(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The assessee before us is Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. They carry on business in manufacturing air compressors, centrifugal pumps and agricultural implements. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment hears 1963-64 and 1965-66. For these two years, the assessee had respectively paid Rs. 17,231 and Rs. 5,765 to Sulzer-Freres, Winterthur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Swiss Company') for drawings obtained from them. Similarly, for the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee paid Rs. 1,19,500 to Tecumseh Products Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'American company') for drawings obtained from the said company. The assessee claimed the aforesaid three amounts as deduction of revenue nature but the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the disallowance. According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the drawings constituted assets for which a certain...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. B.D. Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)397; [1984]150ITR242(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN386(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Two questions are referred to the High Court Court at the instance of the Revenue in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act.2. The questions arise in respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the previous year being S.Y. 2023. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the manufacture and purchase and sale of utensils. For the relevant year it filed a return showing an income of Rs. 9,548. The ITO, however, determined the assessee's income for that year at Rs. 75,170. He found upon examination of the accounts that the assessee had made large purchases without a corresponding increase in the turnover. He also found that the accounts were not complete and that though there were wholesale transactions no quantity account was maintained nor were other details available by recourse to which wholesale transactions could be separated from retail transactions. He also found that there was no plausible explanation for the fall in the assessee's gross profit margin. Upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Sinai Netravalkar Mahesh Govind (Dr.) and Balkrishna Ganpat Pawar (Dr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR67
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. These two petitions involve common questions of law and are based upon analogous facts. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, however, we will narrate the facts in Special Civil Application No. 93 of 1983. The petitioner in this case was admitted to the Goa Medical College for his M.B.B.S. Degree Course. He passed the first M.B.B.S. examination in November 1978, that is when he was due for the said examination. The second M.B.B.S. examination was to be held and was held in April 1980 and the petitioner appeared for the said examination and passed the same. The third M.B.B.S. examination was scheduled and was held in October/November 1981. The petitioner actually sent his application for being admitted to the examination, which application was granted. In fact he was admitted to appear for the said examination. According to the averments made in the petition, due to sickness the petitioner could not a...
Tag this Judgment!Rustom ShahabuddIn Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR787
M.P. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner-original accused was prosecuted under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, having been found in possession of battery connections belonging to the railways, on August 14, 1 974 at Matunga Workshop. The said case was numbered as 255/S of 1974. The prosecution, led the evidence of one Nasaruddin Rakshak attached to Railway Protection Force, Post Matunga. In his evidence the said witness stated that the property seized from the accused had no specific marks indicating that the property belonged to the railways. No further evidence was led by the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the basis of the said evidence discharged the accused on June 25, 1976.2. It is thereafter criminal case bearing Case No. 115/S of 1 977 was filed on the same facts. No leave was obtained by the prosecution to file a fresh complaint. It further appears that no objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the second complaint. However...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. M.E.A. Pace
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD781(Mum.)
1. The assessee was provided with rent-free accommodation. The employer had worked out the perquisite value of this accommodation at Rs. 9,394 without taking into consideration the fair rental value of the same.The ITO, however, found that the flats in the same building were let out for a monthly compensation of Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 4,700, according to their respective areas. The ITO, therefore, determined the fair rental value of the flat provided to the assessee at Rs. 2,500 per month. He proceeded to include the value of the perquisite on account of rent-free accommodation on this basis. On an appeal by the assessee before the A AC, the A AC relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 and held that the assessee's working of the perquisite on account of rent-free accommodation at Rs. 9,394 was correct. He, therefore, allowed the assessee's appeal.2. The revenue has, therefore, filed the present appeal against the order of the AAC de...
Tag this Judgment!Ace Camera Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)385; [1984]150ITR227(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN223(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question that we have to answer in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act. 1961, is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was entitled to a deduction in respect of the discarded dies, either under section 28 of the I.T. Act, 1961, or under any other provision of the assessment year 1963-64 ?'2. The question is raised at the instance of the assessee.3. The assessee deals in and manufactures cameras. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee purchased second hand dies of the value of Rs. 42,490 out of which it wrote off a sum of Rs. 31,867 during the same accounting year. The dies had been purchased for manufacturing cameras with American collaboration, but these cameras, when so produced, were found to be defective. According to the assessment order, the assessee admitted that nothing but trial samples dies could not be said to have been used in the assessee's business and this w...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Karmarkar and D.L. Gokhale (Executors to the Estate of Late Shrim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)11CTR(Bom)37; [1984]150ITR234(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN276(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Poona Bench, is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 23,327 should be brought to charge as capital gains for the assessment year 1964-65 and the sum of Rs. 21,328 would be chargeable to capital gains for the assessment year 1966-67 ?'2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions a few facts may be stated as under :- The Tribunal was considering the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1966-67. The assessee had many agricultural lands in Vishrambag area, Sangli. Some of the plots were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1962, for which an award was made on March 6, 1963. Under the award, Rs. 23,327.61 were awarded to the applicant. This was in res...
Tag this Judgment!South Eastern Railway Administration, Calcutta and anr. Vs. Govindlal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: 2(1984)ACC183; AIR1984Bom223; 1984MhLJ443
1. In this second appeal the original defendants Nos 1(A) and 1 (B) have challenged the decree of the Courts below directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 3632.25 and proportionate costs of the suit with interest at 6 per annum of Rs. 36,000|- from the date of suit till realisation to the plaintiffs the present respondents plaintiffs by the appellant- railways as carries on account of non-delivery and short delivery and short delivery for of the goods consigned to the railways for carriage. The main contention of the appellants in this second appeal is that the trial Court at Gondia had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against the appellants.2.The plaintiffs who are real brother and grain dealers Gondia, carry on grain business in the name and style 'mathuradas Kaluram Mundra' at Gondai in Bhandra district. On 2-6-1996 respondent No.3 M|s. Nathuran Chandulal, General Merchants at Katabhanji in Orissa STate, entered into a contract with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »