Mumbai Court October 1985 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 Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)18; [1986]161ITR286(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN92(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are three references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They arise out of a common statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment. The assessment years with which we are concerned in these references are assessment years 1966-67, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :2. Assessment year 1966-67 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest and expenses in connection with the A. I. D. loan can be added to the actual cost of the machinery for the purposes of depreciation ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in bifurcating the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs paid to foreign collaborators and allowing Rs. 1,91,500 thereof as revenue expenditure spread over a period of five years and treating the balance...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yorkshire Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR565(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The only question posed is referred at the instance of the Revenue. It reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that bonus and depreciation on the flat provided to the director of the assessee-company is not a perquisite under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It will be noticed that the question raises about the bonus and about the depreciation on a flat. The issue of bonus is in regard to the assessment year 1971-72. Counsel are agreed that in view of the judgment of this court in CIT v. Indokem Private Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) , it must be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that bonus is not a perquisite under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The question regarding the depreciation on a flat arises in connection with the assessment year 1970-71, the previous year whereof ended on December 31,...
Watsalbai Wife of Kothiram Parate and anr. Vs. Shripat Parasram Gaikwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR105
H.W. Dhabe. J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by the defendants against the concurrent judgments of the courts below.2. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this appeal, filed a suit for permanent injunction that he has a right to receive water to his Bodi (tank) in Khasara No. 515 flowing by the Pat (water channel) shown by letters .. in the plaint map (Exh. 45) and that the defendants should be permanently restrained from obstructing the flow of the water and from taking the water from the water channel shown in the suit map .He also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 2,215.63 nps. on account of the loss sustained by him in the yield of his crops.3. The facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit fields Survey Numbers 515 and 536 in village Bagheda Garra, Tahsil and district Bhandara Survey Number 515 is a tank from which the plaintiff takes water to irrigate his field Survey No. 536. The defendant No. 1 is the owner of the field Survey Numbers 520/2, 520/3, 522, ...
Smt. Ishwari U. Advani Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1985
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR569]; (1994)IIILLJ126Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India discloses a sad story of an unfortunate female employee working in the office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation') as to how she suffered harassment at the hands of bureaucrats in her office who went to the extent of ruining her career.2. The Petitioner was employed as a Lower Division Clerk, in or about the year 1961, in the office of the Corporation. Thereafter she appeared for a competitive test in the year 1964 successfully and was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 in or about the year 1965. Somewhere in March 1978 she was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk In-charge in the grade of Rs. 425-600 and was then promoted as Officiating Head Clerk in the grade of Rs. 425-700 from April 1, 1978. But to her dismay she received a memorandum on or about February 4, 1980 dated February 2, 1980 from the Regional D...
Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1985
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR542]; (1994)IIILLJ814Bom; 1985MhLJ819
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. Quite an interesting and substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether individual employee or employees can initiate proceeding for cancellation of recognition of a union under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Petitioner union, Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha, is a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is also a recognised trade union under the Act, functioning as such in an Undertaking viz. M/s. Kanak Industries which is engaged in the business of manufacturing readymade garments (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 3'). Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi and Sonali R. Aadkar, are the two employees of M/s. Kanak Industries. Respondent No.4 is the Member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, appointed...
Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Mittal and Co. (Mrp)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD571(Mum.)
1. The department is in appeal and the assessee has filed cross-objection and both these arise out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The question at issue is whether the firm engaged in the business of constructing dams, etc., was entitled to deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction while the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee.3. We have heard the learned departmental representative and also the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned departmental representative placed reliance on the order of the Full Bench in the case of ITO v. Hydle Constructions (P.) Ltd. [1983] 6 ITD 575 (Delhi) for the proposition that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HH, because the end product of the assessee being a dam cannot be considered to be an article within the meaning of Section 80HH(2)(i) The learned counsel for...
Baijnath Brijmohan and Sons P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)266; [1986]161ITR234(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1967-68. The question referred to us for our determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the assessee company from letting out part of the office premises and godown on leave and licence basis was its income chargeable under the head 'Business' ?'2. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee is a private limited company incorporated in 1959 primarily with the object of dealing in mill-made cloth on commission basis. It took certain office premises on hire and also took a godown admeasuring 550 square yards on hire. It put up partitions in the godown and made five godowns out of one big godown. It let out part of the office premises and the godown on leave and licence basis against the payment of compensation. This activity of ...
B.G. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)313; [1986]162ITR23(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1 . This is a reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question to be considered read thus :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 37,500 by the assessee on termination of the tenancy agreement was revenue or capital in nature ?'(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, thejTribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had entered into the tenancy agreement in the course of his business and the compensation received for termination of such agreement would be revenue in nature ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71, the relevant previous year having ended on March 31, 1970.3. The assessee is an advocate. he entered into an agreement with the Indian National Press (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. for obtaining on monthly tenancy ground floor premises in a building on Dalal Street, Fort, Bombay. The assessee filed a suit in the City Civil Court at ...
Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR504
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2-12-82, rejecting the plaintiff's application (Ex. 12) for amendment of the plaint, passed by the 16th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 136 of 1980, the plaintiff has come up in revision. In all the connected revisions identical suit of the plaintiff were filed against different trespassers and identical amendment was proposed in each of these suits and the same have been rejected. Since the same set of facts and pleadings are involved in all these identical cases, these revisions can be disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts may be stated as follows. The plaintiff's case is that it was placed in possession of the suit property on 27-2-1975 by an agreement of sale between the original owner Narmadabai in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff-society thereafter applied to the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and permission for purchase was secured by the plaintiff s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhaichand Textile Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)38; [1986]161ITR129(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN15(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question posed at the instance of the Revenue in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to registration ?'2. The question pertains to the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is a firm. It came into existence by reason of articles of partnership dated August 28, 1968. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are material. They are as follows :'5. This is to record and confirm that the said minors, Dhankumar Suryakant Doshi, Bahubali Suryakant Doshi, Mahavir Suryakant Doshi and Ajitkumar Suryakant Doshi, have been admitted to the benefits of the said partnership.6. The net profits of the partnership shall be divided in the following proportion :1. Ratanchand Bhaichand Doshi 5 paise in a rupee of 100 paise2. Rajkumar Suryakant Doshi 15 do.3. Dhankumar Suryakant Doshi 20 do.4. Bahubali Suryakant Doshi 20 do.5. Mahavir Suryakant Doshi 20 do.6. Ajitkumar Suryakant D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »