Mumbai Court May 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Air India
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD120(Mum.)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of both these appeals together.These are departmental appeals against the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), in respect of the assessments for the years 1974-75 and 1978-79.2 to 7. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 8. The last ground is whether capital gains could be levied in respect of the insurance received when one of the aircrafts crashed and was a total loss.The aircraft 'Emperor Ashoka' on its routine flight from Bombay, crashed on 1-1-1978. The original cost was Rs. 19,62,87,972. From the insurance company, the assessee had received Rs. 35,19,98,972. The ITO was of opinion that there was a transfer and capital gains would be exigible. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's submission that no capital gains would arise. The department is on further appeal.9. We have been referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. [1977] 107 IT...
Kalpana Lok Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD361(Mum.)
1. The only point for consideration in these two appeals filed by the assessee is whether the assesseecompany was entitled to get its loss determined and carried forward notwithstanding the fact that such loss was declared for the first time in the returns filed in response to notice under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of production of cinematographic feature films. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee-company did not file its returns voluntarily but in response to notices issued to it by the ITO under Section 148 read with Section 147(a). In the returns so filed on 15-2-1979, the assesseecompany declared a loss of Rs. 35,110 for the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 53,340 for the assessment year 1975-76.The ITO, however, found that the assessee-company who had filed balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for each of the assessment years had de...
Pramod Kumar K. Bussa Vs. Addl. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD77(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 3-5-1982 of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1978-79, the previous year of which was the Samvat year 2033. The assessee is a HUF.It was a partner in the firm styled Rajesh Dye-chem. As per the deed dated 28-4-1977, the assessee retired from the aforesaid partnership and received a total sum of Rs. 1,95,873.62. This deed of retirement clearly states that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the assessee towards its share in the goodwill of the firm. In fact, the goodwill of the aforesaid firm was not appearing as an asset in its balance sheet, but, for the purpose of settling the account of the retiring assessee, its share of the goodwill was valued at Rs. 10,000 and the same was brought into accounts and credited to the retiring partner's account.The amount paid to the assessee consisted of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 10,000 as goodwill, another sum of Rs. 4,842 as the assessee's share in the current profits and the ...
Ampoules and Vials Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD69(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri S. N. Rotho, Accountant Member - This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28-11-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he confirmed the order under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), passed by the ITO demanding additional tax of Rs. 5,658 from the assessee.2. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The ITO found that the distributable income for the assessment year 1976-77 worked out to Rs. 22,632. According to the statutory percentage applicable to a manufacturer like the assessee-company the assessee should have declared 45 per cent of Rs. 22,632 which amounted to Rs. 10,184 as dividend. As the assessee did not declare any dividend, the ITO passed the aforesaid order.3. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who, however, confirmed the order of the ITO.4. Shri S. L. Jain, the learned representative for the assessee, urged before us that the order passed by the I...
Fourth Income-tax Officer Vs. C. D. J. Essa Thaver.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD24(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri D. V. Junnarkar, Accountant Member - The assessee was employed as a passenger broker by the British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. incorporated in England (the UK Co.) with effect from 13-8-1937 on a remuneration of Rs. 400 per month plus brokerage on all direct bookings introduced by the assessee. From 1-1-1965, his remuneration was increased to Rs. 2000 per month but basically the terms of his employment remained the same. His appointment was terminated by the letter dated 2-2-1976 from Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P.) Ltd., the agents for the UK Co., with effect from the termination of the last voyage of steamship Karanjia in 1976. The assessee by his letter dated 22-6-1976 addressed to Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P.) Ltd. requested for a reasonable pension considering the length of his service and the present prevailing living conditions. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P.) Ltd. after due consultation with its London principal, agreed to after a lump sum payment of Rs. 1,25,...
Ramdas Shriniwas Nayak Vs. Abdul Rehman Antulay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR296
Khatri, J.1. At the instance of the complainant, Shri Pradhan, Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, was summoned to produce documents regarding the Government decision said to have been taken on October 6, 1980, to set up Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan. The learned Advocate General has appeared for the State Government and has claimed immunity for the Government from producing these documents. Shri Shivajirao Bapusaheb Deshmukh, Minister for State for General Administration and other departments, had filed his affidavit Exh. 93 on April 23, 1984. The complainant filed his affidavit in reply Exh. 103 on April 27, 1984. Arguments were heard on April 30 and May 2. After the arguments were over, the learned Advocate General filed a further affidavit of Shri Deshmukh.2. In his affidavits, Shri Deshmukh has affirmed that the following three documents are in custody of the Government: -(i) The note dated October 4, 1980 circulated by the GAD to the Cabinet for the purpose of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›