Mumbai Court February 1984 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-iii Vs. Nathuram Ramnarayan Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]151ITR767(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN355(Bom)
Sujata Manohar J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The questions sought to be raised are set out in paragraph 5 of the application. The Tribunal has found that under a resolution dated March 14, 1960, the assessee purchased a plot of land at Borivali admeasuring 45,533 square yards for a sum of Rs. 1,21,009. Though the purpose for which the land was purchased was not mentioned in the resolution, the assessee had applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for the plans submitted by it. The Tribunal has found from the plans as well as from the correspondence exchanged between the assessee and the Municipal Corporation that the permission was for constructing staff quarters as well as staff quarters for the staff of Tata Group of Mills, whose selling agents the assessee was. Ultimately, permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation on April 20, 1971. In the meanwhile, the assessee had developed the plot in accordance with the rules and regu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vii Vs. V.H. Sheth and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)380; [1984]148ITR169(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN190(Bom)
Kanta J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the income tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to this court for determination the three questions set out in paragraph 5 of the application. The main question is whether the ITO was entitled to tax the respondent-assessee as an association of persons. The assessment year involved is 1976-77. The order of assessment taxing the assessee as an association of persons was passed on March 20, 1979. Prior to that, the same ITO had assessee the three members of the said association as individuals and taxed their shares in the same income in their capacity as individuals. It may be pointed out thet Mr. V. V. Sheth, one of the members, was assessed on February 8, 1979, Mr.2. V. H. Sheth, the another member was assessed on August 31, 1978, and Mrs. Jayaben Seth, the third members, was assessee on February 30, 1979. As per the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued on August 24, 1966, and set out in t...
Ninth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Abdul Bhai Currimjee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD449(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department is directed against the order dated 24-1-1983, passed by the AAC.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1976-77. In the return of wealth-tax filed by the assessee, he described his status as 'individual, not citizen of India and non-resident in India.' 3. Rule 3 of Part II of Schedule I to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957('the Act') lays down that where an assessee is an individual who is not a citizen of India and is not resident in India, the wealth-tax payable by him, computed in accordance with the rates specified in the said Schedule shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50 per cent thereof.4. In view of the said rule, the tax payable by the assessee would be 50 per cent of the tax otherwise payable, if his status, as disclosed in the return, is accepted by the WTO.5. The WTO completed the assessment under Section 16(1) of the Act, and in the assessment order he mentioned the status of the assessee as 'individual, citizen of India.' He,...
Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. K.N. Anantharama Ayyar, Commr. of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Bom)173; [1985]151ITR713(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and carry on the business of manufacturing various petrochemical products and dyes. The petitioners also carry on trading activities. For the assessment year 1972-73, the petitioners were assessed on a gross total income of Rs. 1,13,40,162. The distributable income was worked out at Rs. 29,56,751. Out of this distributable income, the income which could be allocated to manufacturing activities was 37% of the distributable income and this was worked out at Rs. 10,93,996. The balance income of Rs. 18,62,755 was allocated to the trading activities of the petitioners.2. Under Chapter XI of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of companies in which the public is not substantially interested and their subsidiaries, a provision is made prescribing that a statutory percentage of their income should be distributed as dividend. Under s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as then in force (which forms ...
Nagpur Roman Catholic Dicesan Corpn. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom183
1. The petitioner public trust filed this petition, challenging the order of M.R.T.dt .31-8-1978 passed in Ceiling Appeal No.A1c. A-108 of 1978arising out of order dated 31-7-1976 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Umrer, (having powers of Collector) in Ceiling Case No.75/60-A(5)of 1964-65 of Thana.2. On return filed by the petitioner under S.12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,1961, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Revenue) Nagpur after inquiry, held that the petitioner held 479.43acres of surplus land vide order dated 31-31971.This order was challenged in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 13-3-1972. The petitioner then preferred Special Civil Application No.602of 1972,challenging these orders before this Court and this Court vide its order dated17-1-1975, set aside both these orders and remitted the matter back to Special Deputy Collector for affording opportunity to the petit...
Raghunath S/O Sukhdeo Mahadeo Mahagovind @ Mahabali Vs. State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR475
M.R. Waikar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original accused No. 3-Raghunath having been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed (Shri S.S. Waholikar).2. The facts are very few and simple. Those which are undisputed and well-high established, as these; Deceased Pandurang was a lame person. Sushila was the widow of a rich agriculturist owning about 75 acres of land, resident of village Dhanora. Padmini was her-co-widow and their relations were strained as is usual between co-widows, possessing property. Deceased Pandurang was the Mukhtiyar of Sushila who used to look after the litigations and her property. This appellant-Raghunath was the servant of Sushila. Pandurang, during the relevant period, used to visit Rajewadi to attend the recitals of Ramayan every day between 8.00 and 10.00 p.m. Rajewadi is about 2 to 3 furlongs from Dhanora. Sushila also used...
P.D. Palkhandwar and Others Vs. Siddayya Shivamurtaya Hiremath and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR119
1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution by the original accused, challenging the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, dt. 20th July 1983, whereby he rejected the petitioners' objection that the prosecution against them was barred by time.2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass. There is a registered co-operative housing society by name 'Greater Bombay Veerashaiva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' For the period 1969 to 1973, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were holding the posts of the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. The present, Respondent 1 (for short 'the respondent') became the Chairman of this Society in 1977. On 27th April 1982, he filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioners, alleging that during the period 1969 to 1973, they committed criminal breach of trust covering a sum of Rs. 13,000/- or so, belonging to the Society. The copy of this complaint is annexed to the petition...
P.D. Palkhandwar and ors. Vs. Siddayya Shivamurtaya Hiremath and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1017; 1985MhLJ477
Khatri, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by the original accused, challenging the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, dt. 20th July 1983, whereby he rejected the petitioners' objection that the prosecution against them was barred by time.2. The material facts lie within a narrow compass. There is a registered co-operative housing society by name 'Greater Bombay Veerashaiva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.' For the period 1969 to 1973, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were holding the posts of the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. The present, Respondent 1 (for short 'the respondent') became the Chairman of this Society in 1977. On 27th April 1982, he filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioners, alleging that during the period 1969 to 1973, they committed criminal breach of trust covering a sum of Rs. 13,0007- or so, belonging to the Society. The copy of this complaint is annexed to...
Fourteenth Income-tax Officer Vs. Manoharlal J. Kalro (Huf).
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD387(Mum)
ORDER1. They two appeals filed by the department relate to the same assessee. They raise a common issue for decision and are directed against the common order dated 15-7-1983 of the AAC relating to the assessment years 1977-78. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. In these two appeals I am concerned with the assessment year 1977-78, the previous year of which ended 30-6-1976 and the assessment year 1978-79, the previous year of which ended on 39-6-1977.3. The assessee Manoharlal, J. Karlo filed the returns in the status of an HUF consisting of himself as the karta and his wife as the only other member of the family during the two previous years under consideration. It may be stated that the assessee was blessed with a son only on 14-12-1977, i.e., after the close of the previous year 1976-77. In these returns, the assessee showed income from property and 50 per cent share profit in a firm styled Jethanand Manoharlal. The ass...
income-tax Officer Vs. Vikram Consutancy Services (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD687(Mum)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 30-6-1983 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year of which ended on 30-12-1979.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee should be allocated between the income from consultancy fees of Rs. 7,04,225 and other income, whereas, the ITO had correctly allocated the entire expenses as pertaining to the consultancy fees of Rs. 7,04,225.3. The assessee is a private limited company deriving income from providing technical advice to its clients both in India and abroad. During the year under consideration, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 7,04,225 as fees for the consultancy services rendered to a foreign party. The assessee also earned interest of Rs. 15,990 on moneys advances. In the return of income filed by the assessee relief under section 80-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »