Mumbai Court September 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.V. Donde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR210(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for determination in this reference and the said question reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the measure of penalty leviable for the assessment year 1961-62 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case was according to the law as it stood on April 1, 1961, or according to the law as it stood amended with effect from April 1, 1968 ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1961-62, the corresponding accounting period being the year ending March 31, 1961. Pursuant to a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act 1961, the assessee filed a 'nil' return of income. The business of the assessee was manufacture of plastic and wax models which were purchased by the Government and certain other institutions for advertisement for the purposes of family planning. On investigation of facts, the Income-tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raizally Abidally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Bom)152; [1987]163ITR216(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are concerned in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Central Bakery. He had been assessed to income-tax from 1950 onwards but had not produced any books of account. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee produced before the Income-tax Officer a cash book and ledger. The Income-tax Officer found that the books produced were not genuine and had been written up only to explain away investments made by the assessee of about rupees two lakhs. In the account books, the assessee had shown a cash credit of Rs 40,000 as withdrawn from the 'Tijori', in driblets of Rs. 10,000 each on December 2, 1964, December 22, 1964, February 28, 1965 and October 22, 1966. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source from which he became possessed of cash to the extent of Rs. 40,000. The assessee replied by letters da...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Universal Cine Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)169; [1986]161ITR696(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN492(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1969-70. The question referred to us for determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, balance 13,200 square yards of land or any part thereof was non-agricultural land and, therefore, more than 3/25 share of the excess price realised by the assessee-company was liable to assessment under the head 'Capital gains' If so, how much ?'2. The relevant facts, shortly stated, are as follows :Govindram Brothers Limited (referred to hereinafter as 'Govindram Brothers') was carrying on several businesses including film business.3. They owned the Famous Cine Laboratory at Tardeo and Modern Studio at Andheri. On August 31, 1951, Govindram Brothers entered into an agreement to purchase an open plot of land admeasuring 24,613 square yards (referred to hereinafter as 'the larger plot') for Rs. 1,47,816. The...
Tag this Judgment!Gazlur Rehman Usmanli @ Fazalbhai Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs, Cent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR368
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner has been arrested on 6-9-1985 on the allegation that he was actively associated in smuggling of contraband goods, found in two trucks bearing No. MMK 3512 and MTG 2276, which were intercepted by the officers of Manor Police Station on Bombay-Ahmedabad Highway in the early hours of 20th March, 1985. He was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Inspector of Customs, Marine & Preventive Cell, Bombay on the same day and was ordered to be remanded to jail custody till 9-9-1985.2. On 9th September, 1985, petitioner's prayer for bail was opposed by the aforesaid officer mainly on the ground that several other persons including prime conspirators concerned in the case were yet to be traced out and that if the petitioner was granted bail, the investigation will be hampered. He also stated that the petitioner was not available before 6-9-1985 and that he had remained absent on 7th May, 1985 in other adjudication proceedings pending against him ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Mallappa Ulegadi Vs. Gram Panchayat at Mouje Kadgaon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR79; 1986MhLJ514
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner herein, who was a member of the Gram, Panchayat, signed and sent a notice of resignation in the form prescribed under the Bombay Village Panchayats (Delivery of Notice of Resignation) Rules, 1965. The question is whether his resignation took effect and he ceased to be a member of the Gram Panchayat?2. Though there was some attempt to put up before the Collector a case that this notice was not sent voluntarily and knowingly, the petitioner having admitted before the Collector that he had in fact sent a notice of resignation voluntarily, it is not now open to him to raise that question in these writ proceedings. Once it is held that he has sent the notice of resignation, the only question that requires to be considered is whether it amounts to resignation within the meaning of Section 29(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958? Section 29(1) does not speak of notice of resignation. It only provides that any member who is elected may resign hi...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of C.M. Mody A.P.J.C. Mody Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD395(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the accountable person. The name of the deceased is Shri Cawas M. Mody. The date of death is 31-1-1973. At the time of his death, the deceased was a partner in the firm of 'C.J.Industries (L.N.L.)' and 'C.J. Industries (Cold Storage Department)'.Under Clause 3(b) of the partnership deed, it was provided that the goodwill, trade name and tenancy right of the premises in which the partnership business were carried on would belong exclusively to the deceased Shri Cawas M. Mody. In Clause 3(c) of the partnership deed it was mentioned that the goodwill of partnership business should be valued at 18 months' purchase of the average annual profits of the last completed four years or shorter period as the case might be and should not in any event for the purpose of accounting between partners either upon dissolution or upon death of the said deceased Shri Cawas M. Mody be valued at more than Rs. 50,000. The contention of the accountable person before the Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Godfrey Philips India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)32; [1986]161ITR684(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN29(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question for consideration in this reference made at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interim dividend of Rs. 7,50,000 should not be taken into account for the purpose of levying tax at the rate of 7.5 per cent. under the Finance Act, 1968, and consequently holding that dividend declared was only Rs. 8,00,000 as against Rs. 15,50,000 adopted by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is a limited liability company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1968-69, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year 1967.3. On June 29, 1967, the assessee declared at its annual general meeting a dividend of Rs. 8,00,000 in respect of the profits earned in 1966.4. On December 19, 1967, the assessee's directors at a board meeting exercised the powers conferred upon them unde...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Kishanchand Pahuja Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR379
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the order of detention issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 27th of May, 1985 detaining one Nandlal Kishanchand Pahuja under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing, keeping smuggled goods, is challenged on various grounds.2. Shri Canteenwalla the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the order is vitiated by total non-application of mind. According to him, from the ground of detention, it is quite clear that it is based on seizure of gold from the detenu, which was in melting process weighing 360.950 grammes valued at Rs. 73,984.50, for which the detenu could not account. From the material placed before the Detaining Authority, it is quite clear that the gold, which was in melting process, was only 187,500 grammes...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Alias Ashok Nana Patil Vs. Nana Rama Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR488; 1986MhLJ106
N.K. Parekh, J.1. The appellant in this matter is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Radhanagari at Radhanagari and the appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 360 of 1977 on the file of the Extra Assistant Judge, Kolhapur. 2. The facts that give rise to this appeal are that one Rama Aba Patil had two sons viz., Nana Rama Patil (respondent No. 1 herein) and Annappa Rama Patil (respondent No. 4 herein). Gojabai, (wrongly described in the paper book as Yojabai) respondent No. 3, is the first wife of the said Nana Rama Patil. respondent No. 1. Shripati, respondent No. 2, is the son of the said Nana and Gojabai respondent No. 3. On or about the April 23, 1966, the said Nana Rama Patil respondent No. 1 contracted a second marriage viz., with one Ratnabai. Raghunath (the appellant herein) and one Sonabai and one Anutai are the children of this second marriage. The said Sonatai and Anutai are, however, not pa...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SuessIn Textile Ball Bearing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Bom)50; [1987]163ITR582(Bom); [1986]26TAXMAN414(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These three references arise from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The relevant facts in the said references and the questions referred to us are identical, and hence we propose to dispose of these references by this common judgment.2. The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The assessee set up a factory for manufacturing textile machinery parts. For setting up this factory it purchased new plant and machinery and installed the same in a portion of a building in the Laxmi Woollen Mill's estate which it took on lease and which had been previously used by an earlier occupant for the purposes of business. The assessee also took on lease a portion of the Bank of Baroda Building in the same estate for its office, and these premises had also been previously used by the earlier occupant thereof for purposes of business The assessee claimed the benefit of partial exemption from income-tax provided under the provisions of section 8...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »