Mumbai Court November 1984 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD201(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the revenue objects to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a sum of Rs. 21,016 as business expenditure. On 29-3-1946, an immovable property was acquired on behalf of the Indore Mill Owners Association through its President, Sir Seth Hukamchand Sarupchand Kt., and the Vice President, Rai Bahadur Rajya Bhushan Seth Kanhaiyalal Nandlal Bhandari. According to the sale deed dated 29-3-1946 at pages 27 to 32 of the appellant's paper book, this property was purchased on behalf of the said association, which was not yet a registered corporation but which consisted of seven incorporated and registered companies under the Indore Companies Act, 1914. The assessee-company, the Hukamchand Mills Ltd., Indore, is the first company mentioned therein. It appears that these seven companies formed themselves into an association called the Indore Mill Owners Association and by resolution No. 1 dated 2-1-1946 resolved that the said association should buy all the property de...
Tag this Judgment!Bachhraj Factories Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD718(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1974-75.The original assessment was completed on 6-8-1977. In the said assessment, the ITO had allowed deduction of Rs. 31,500. This amount had been spent by the assessee in dismantling and shifting the ginning and pressing factory at Amravati, Maharashtra, and establishing another factory at Guntur, in Andhra Pradesh. The ITO presumed that expenses were revenue in nature and on that ground allowed the said deduction.Subsequently, the audit party brought to the notice of the ITO the decision of the Supreme Court in Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 160, wherein the Supreme Court had held that expenses of the above category were capital in nature and not allowable as deduction. On the basis of this information, the ITO reopened the assessment under Section 147(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He overruled the objection that the reopening was bad in law. On merits, he held that the said expenses were c...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD723(Mum.)
1. Since these two appeals involve common contentions, they are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. The appellant is Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. It carries on banking business with its registered office at Girgaum and branches at Dadar, Goregaon, Chembur, Juhu, Khetwadi, Ghatkopar and Sadashiv Cross Lane. These appeals relate to its income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.3. For the first year 1980-81, for which the previous year ended on 30-6-1979, the appellant-bank filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 2,780. The ITO found that the appellant-bank derived income from banking business, rent from house property and dividend income from shares. For the first time, the appellant claimed in the course of the assessment proceedings that the rental income of Rs. 19,990 from the house property would be exempt under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') The ITO did not accept this claim, as he was of...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Enterprises Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD480(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by a registered firm against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 17-12-1982, in the 1979-80 income-tax assessment proceedings.2. The only ground of appeal relates to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s action in not allowing the business loss of Rs. 1 lakh, as claimed by the assessee.3. Shri Jivraj for the assessee pointed out that for the assessment year 1979-80, previous year ending 31-3-1977 on 31-7-1979, the assessee filed a return disclosing income of Rs. 90,040. As observed by the ITO, the assessee's business is described, stated Shri Jivraj, in the following words : The assessee is receiving commission income from various parties, to whom funds are advanced for making pictures.During the year of account, the assessee debited to the profit and loss account a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Examining the claim for the assessee's deduction of this amount of Rs. 1 lakh, the ITO observed as under : The assessee was also asked to file details of loss of Rs. 1 lakh on acco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Daulatram Ram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC122(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. M/s. Dalatram, Rameshwarlal, who are the respondents in this reference, are dealers registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. For the assessment period 12th December, 1967 to 30th September, 1968 an assessment order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer as a result of which an amount of Rs. 2,36,544.14 was included in the turnover of sales of the assessee and was subjected to sales tax. This amount of Rs. 2,36,544.14 is the amount covered by 7 invoices all dated 12th July, 1968 issued by the assessee in the name of Bharat Barrel and Drum . The respondent-assessee contended before the Sales Tax Officer that these invoices did not represent any sales made by the assessee to Bharat Barrel and Drum . This contention of the assessee was, however, rejected by the Sales Tax Officer.2. The respondents filed an appeal from this decision before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Act. The respondents contended that (1) the invoices in question did not repres...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar Vs. Bapurao Ravji Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom426; 1985(2)BomCR256; (1983)86BOMLR623; 1985MhLJ130
ORDER1.This is the original defendant's civil revision application against an order refusing amendment which sought to set up a counter-claim.2. The following facts are not in dispute. At Village Sonawadi, Tahasil Daund, District Pune, the respondent-plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of Gat No. 242 and towards its east is situated Gat No. 244. On Mar. 14,1978, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit on assertion that he was the owner and in peaceful possession of all that area of Gat No.242 and further that the petitioner-defendant is trying to trespass in Gat No.242 and threatening to construct a house in the area which forms part thereof. The respondent-plaintiff alleged that, in fact, Gat No.242 is under cultivation and crops were standing therein. In spite of this, the petitioner defendant was trying to enter, contrary to law and by use of force. On these allegations, he prayed for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. Thus, the suit claim is one...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mazda theatres (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD195(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - In this appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1960-61, the only question that requires decision is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the re-opening of the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), was bad in law.2. The assessee is a company, in the original assessment, the assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 1,67,062 to Southern Engineers, Bombay, for repairs and renovation of the theatre in which the assessee was carrying on business. The ITO was satisfied on the material produced by the assessee that the said amount had been spent by the assessee for the aforesaid purpose. He granted deduction of the said amount and completed the assessment.3. In the course of assessment for the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 86,400 towards the said repairs and renovation. This amount was alleged to have been paid to the same party, viz., Southern Engin...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Prizer Corporation
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD351(Mum.)
1. The department is objecting to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the date of accrual of income, by way of dividend, declared by an Indian company for these three assessment years. The assessee, in the cross-objections for the same years, seeks to support the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on another ground, i.e., maintenance of books of account on cash basis.2. The assessee is a non-resident company. The accounts are closed on November 30. This company holds shares in its Indian subsidiary. The Indian company had declared dividends, both interim and final, in the course of the three accounting years we are concerned with.3. The chart below shows the dates of declaration and the dates of remittance by the Indian company after obtaining the permission of the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') :Sl. No. Type of Date of Amount Date of dividend declaration Rs. remittance1. Final 31-7-1975 50,40,000 Rs. 25,40,000 on 3-9-19763. Final 31-5-1976 79,80,000 Rs. 50,40,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: (1985)13ITD270(Mum.)
1. These are four appeals by a limited company in the Income-tax assessment for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. As certain common contentions are raised, these four appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. As its name suggests the assessee-company is carrying on business of manufacture of paints. For each of the four assessment years under consideration, the assessee has returned the income exceeding Rs. 1,50,00,000.3 to 18. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 19. Valuation of closing stock, effect of excise duty: Shri Mehta submitted that in his order for the assessment year 1981-82 for the first time, the IAC examined the issue of valuation of closing stock.For the reasons given in paras 4 and 5 of his order for that year and for similar reasons given in para 6 of his order for the subsequent year, the IAC, respectively, added to the returned income for the two years the amount of Rs. 34,64,179 and Rs. 34,02,272. Dealing with this issu...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Manilal and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1989(23)LC65(Bombay); 1985(22)ELT32(Bom)
1. The 5th respondent is an Export House and held 18 import licences. The Import Policy for 1979-80 provided that import of items appearing in Appendix 9 thereto would be governed by the connected policy of Government in the respective Ministries, as detailed therein; no other person would be eligible to import them unless specifically licensed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. On 18th July, 1980 the 5th respondent sent the licences to the Chief Controller and asked for endorsement thereon to enable them to import the drugs mentioned in Appendix 9. On 19th September, 1980 Miss S.K. Grewal, Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, wrote to the 5th respondent enclosing therewith the licences. She stated that she had endorsed thereon : 'The drugs appearing in Appendix 9', as desired by the 5th respondent and that the drugs could be imported without any restriction in respect of value or quantity. Alongside her endorsements upon the licences were her signatur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »