Mumbai Court September 1985 Judgments
Azolla Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD438(Mum.)
1. The assessee, who is appellant before us, is a non-resident shipping company. The assessee filed return under Section 172(3) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') on 3-10-1975. The ITO made assessment order under Section 172(4) on 31-3-1976. In that order, the ITO found that the total amount of freight earned on total cargo loaded was 1,97,274 U.S. Dollars, The ITO applied the rate of Rs. 8.76 per U.S. Dollar. The total amount of freight earned in Indian rupees at that rate came to Rs. 17,28,208. Section 172(2) laid down that taxable income would be 7.5 per cent of the total amount of freight earned. Consequently, the ITO assessed the taxable income at Rs. 1,29,615 being 7.5 per cent of Rs. 17,28,208. Total tax payable came to Rs. 95,267. The amount that had been paid by the assessee before the filing of the said return was Rs. 95,922. The assessment was, thus, completed on taxable income of Rs. 1,29,615 under Section 172(4).2. Subsequently, the agent of the assessee sent a letter date...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.C. Patel and I.C. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR879(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The first assessee had appeared in person before this court on September 10, 1984, and had waived service on behalf of himself and his co-assessee.2. The question here concerned reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked to adopt the estimated fair market value of the land transferred by the assessee to Hindustan Earth Movers Ltd., in which the assessee was a major shareholder, as the full value of consideration in place of the actual sale price declared by the assessee for computing the capital gains chargeable under section 45 of the said Act ?'3. The assessee had purchased a plot of land at Baroda in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1958-59. On March 25, 1970, that is, during the previous year for the assessment year here concerned, the land was transferred to Hindustan Earth Movers Ltd. for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)70; [1986]161ITR806(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN452(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are four references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The two questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee carried on business or profession in Goa, Daman and Diu before the appointed day, namely, December 20, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of concession contained in paragraphs 9, 16 and 17 of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1964 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66 onwards. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67,1967-68 and 1968-69. We are disposing of these references together because, although the questions ha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simmonds Marshall Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)320; [1986]161ITR817(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question to be considered reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a new industrial undertaking had come into being and that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee had been carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of self-locking nylocnuts for vehicles. For the purposes of such manufacture, it imported or purchased from local sources nylocinserts. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year here concerned, the assessee set up a plant for the manufacture of nylocinserts and commenced that manufacture. For setting up the plant, it raised fresh capital to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000. It housed the plant in an extension of its existing premises. The enti...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Hind Industries Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas950(Bom); (1986)53CTR(Bom)101; [1986]161ITR842(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN36(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee. We are asked to answer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the legal expenditure of Rs. 15,086 incurred by the assessee towards fees for conducting an appeal before the Company Law Board in connection with the refusal of registration of shares of M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited is an admissible deduction under section 37 or any other section of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee derives income from the manufacture of auto spare parts, from managing agency commission and from dividends. The assessee acquired 3,643 shares of M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited in or about February, 1968. The board of directors of M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited (now referred to as ' M/s. Bajaj', refused to register the said shares in the name of the assessee. The assessee took proceedings before the Company Law Board under section 111 of the Companies Act...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Bank Vs. Gladstone Lyall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR477
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is a bank suit------the tribe whereof is ever increasing ------ for recovery of amount due under bills of exchange accepted by the defendants and more than once assured and promised to be paid in reply to demand accordingly before the suit. 2. Relevant facts, abbreviated to the minimum, are as follows: One Havana Products------a partnership firm------entered into a sales agreement with the defendants for marketing the firm's products. By their letter of February 7, 1983 the firm requested the plaintiffs to grant them bill discounting facility qua hundies they would be drawing on the defendants The defendants themselves also wrote letter dated February 28. 1983 to the plaintiffs that they would be buying the firm's products on 90 days bills of exchange which will be accepted by the defendants and will be signed for them by one P. N. Kanth whose duly attested signature was affixed on the said letter itself. The plaintiffs granted bill discounting facility according...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Chandrakant B. Shah and ors. Vs. the Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The captioned appeals arise out of the same adjudication order No.XVII (GC) 8-48/76 dated 12.3.1979 passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.) Bombay under which he held various contraventions of Gold Control Act as proved against the appellants. These appeals were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of under this common order. However, for the sake of clarity it is preferable to deal with them separately in accordance with the order in which they were argued personally before us.2. Taking up the appeals of M/s. Parimal Jewellers and its partner Shri C.B. Shah, Advocate Shri Desai pointed out that the Show Cause Notice dated 29.10.1976 issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise was addressed to M/s. Parimal Jewellers, Cambay, Gujarat. Though the partners of M/s.Parimal Jewellers were mentioned in the address, it was only the firm which was asked to show cause against the various contraventions as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. No partners of the firm including Shri C.B...
Tag this Judgment!Navinchandra Gandhi Vs. Dr. Pushpasen Kapadia and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR557
ORDER1. A criminal case under S. 171H of the I.P.C. has been filed by the first respondent against the petitioner herein on the grounds that elections for filling a seat in the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Daman and Diu were held in the month of November December 1984 in the constituency of Diu. The complainant was a supporter and election agent of the candidate, Dr. Shamjibhai B. Solanki who was returned. During the election campaign, the petitioner was the agent of the candidate, Mr. N. S. Fugro, who had stood as an independent. He is a partner in the family business of Mr. Fugro, he used to do propaganda work and was handling the election office in the same manner as the candidate, he acted as the counting agent of the said Fugro and he used to give advertisement and also gave materials for printing to different printers and editors of the newspapers. After the elections, Mr. Fugro filed an election petition in this Court and the same is pending. In the course of his deposition, Fug...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kulsum J.G. Padamsee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)81; [1986]161ITR704(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN32(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. To answer the question in this reference, at the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a large body of facts needs to be set out.2. The assessment year concerned is the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee's husband was assessed for the assessment year 1948-49 on March 19, 1953. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer received information that the assessee's husband and the assessee had been prosecuted for illegally receiving premium (pugree) for letting out the assessee's husband's newly constructed property known as 'Candy Castle'. The assessee's husband had been acquitted, but the assessee had been convicted, because the court found that she, in the course of her management of the property under a power of attorney from her husband, had received an amount of Rs. 5,000 as premium from a tenant. Acting upon this information, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment of the assessee's husband for the assessment year 1948-49. The Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)442; [1986]161ITR692(Bom)
Kania, J.1. Only one question is referred to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said question runs as follows :'Whether, the Tribunal was right in allowing for the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee's claim for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of plant and machinery of Rs. 33,781 continued to be used for scientific research notwithstanding the deduction allowed to the assessee in respect of such capital expenditure under section 35 of the said Act in the earlier years, namely, Rs. 25,409 for the assessment year 1969-70 and Rs. 8,372 for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. The only facts relevant for the determination of the question referred to us are that the assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1971-72. In respect of the assessment for this year, a deduction was claimed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of laboratory equipment used for scientific re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »