Mumbai Court November 1985 Judgments
Fancy Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)140; [1986]162ITR827(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN155(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. These are three references arising on a consolidated statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The questions which have been referred to us for our determination areas follows :'(1) Assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. - Whether the claim of the assessee that 50% of the profits earned in the computation period should be included in the computation of its capital employed for the purpose of section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rightly rejected ?(2) Assessment year 1967-68. - Whether the claim of the assessee to deduct the sum of Rs. 12,188 being the expenditure on the boring of wells at the new factory site at Borivli has been rightly rejected on the ground that it was capital expenditure ?'3. As the questions themselves make it clear, question No. (1) pertains to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. As far as question No. (1) is concerned, it is agreed between counsel that...
Tag this Judgment!Harisingh Varma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through G.M., W.R. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR352
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petition is by a Western Railway Servant. He is a member of the Scheduled Castes. He was appointed as a clerk on 2nd September, 1967. In 1972 he was promoted as a senior clerk, in 1978 as a head clerk and in 1980 as a chief clerk, in which position he was working when the petition was filed.2. The 3rd respondent is, on the admission of the Western Railway authorities, junior to the petitioner and is so shown in the seniority list. The 3rd respondent has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay claiming a higher seniority. To this suit the petitioner is not a party. For the purposes of this petition the petitioner shall, on the basis of the seniority list, be considered senior to the 3rd respondent.3. The 3rd respondent is also a member of the Scheduled Castes. On 31st October, 1981, the 3rd respondent was placed by the authorities on a select list for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. This order stated that the petitioner had not been conside...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. Gobindram Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)70; [1987]163ITR528(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN450(Bom)
ORDERKania, A.C.J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of gratuity to the Director was disallowable in law by reason of the provisions of s. 40(a)(v) of the Act, even though such payment was made for commercial expediency ?'2. The facts found by the Tribunal show that the amount of Rs. 10,000 referred to in the question was paid by the assessee in cash excreta to one Jethanand Udhavdas who was in service of the assessee as a Director for 14 years when he retired. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 18,595 per annum and also drew a commission of Rs. 6,743 during the relevant previous year. In the relevant previous year ending 31-3-1971, the assessee company paid the said Director Rs. 10,000 as gratuity as per the resolution of that date and claimed the same as a reduction. The claim was disallowed by the ITO but ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Trustees of Staff Gratuity Fund of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR84; (1987)59CTR(Bom)92; [1986]162ITR471(Bom); [1987]30TAXMAN426(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. These eight references at the instance of the Revenue raise identical questions. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can be held that all the employees of the assessee-company were the beneficiaries under the trust 'Trustees of the Staff Gratuity Fund of Shree Ram Mills Limited ?'(2) Whether on construing the trust deed and the surrounding circumstances, it can be held that the beneficiaries and their shares were determinate at the end of each accounting year ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income is rightly assessable under the provisions of section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under section 164 of the said Act ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1963-64 and 1965-66 to 1971-72. The accounting years for each of these assessment years are the calendar years preceding the assessment years.3. The assessees, it will noted, are the trustees of the Staff Gratuity Fund of Shree Ram Mi...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Gavit Vs. Smt. Sherbanoo Hasan Daya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR293; (1986)55CTR(Bom)42; [1986]161ITR793(Bom); 1986MhLJ286; [1986]28TAXMAN349(Bom)
Kolse Patil, J.1. On October 19, 1983, the Deputy Director of Inspection. Unit No. II, issued a warrant authorising complainant, R R. Gavit, and another officer to search the residential premises of the accused-respondent No. 1 under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (herein-after for brevity's sake referred to as 'the Act'). They were a] so authorised to exercise all other powers and functions under section 132 of the Act and the rules relating thereto. On the same day at 6.30 p.m., they went to the residence of the accused and recorded her statement on oath. Question No. 2 in the statement and the answer given to it by the accused was as follows :'Qus. No. 2 : Whether you have any bank accounts, bank lockers, fixed deposits, shares either in your name or jointly with any other person What are your immovable and movable assets Please state in brief ? Ans. : I have got one savings account bearing a/c. No. 18732 with the Central Bank of India, Kalbadevi Branch, Bombay. There is...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Dixit, Manager, Vegoils Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR524; [1986(52)FLR41]; (1994)IIILLJ30Bom
R.R. Jahagirdar, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 1984 which has been filed by the original accused is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Bombay, on 5 9th of January 1981 under Section 21(i)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. The companion appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1984 is filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of the sentence, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The case of the prosecution may be stated as follows:2. The accused is the manager of a factory 'Vegoils Ltd.' situated at Wadala (E), Bombay. On 9th September 1979, an accident 2 had taken place in the factory premises which resulted into a serious injury caused to a workman by name Mahadeo Salunkhe. On 17th of September, 1979, the complainant, who is Inspector of Facto...
Tag this Judgment!Rampyari Surajbali Since Decd. by Her Heirs and Legal Representatives ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR393
S.K. Desai, J.1. One K.V. Borkar owner of certain land at Borkar Wadi, Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay-28, filed two suits. Both were eviction suits. One of them being RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966. This was against two defendants viz., the tenant and the occupant. Both suits were decreed and respective appeals were also dismissed. The heirs of original defendant No. 2 in RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966 have preferred this writ petition.2. In RAE Suit No. 4563 of 1966 eviction of the defendant and the occupant was sought from an open plot of land admeasuring 10' X 25' on the basis that the plaintiff required the said open plot for erection of a new building. In other words, the landlord sought eviction under the provisions contained in section 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was agreed that evidence in both the suits, namely Suit No. 4563/66 and Suit No. 4562/66 would be taken together. Evidence was thereafter led by the parties and a common judgment was given on 28th February, 1975 in both the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›