Mumbai Court September 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. Ibm World Trade Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)64; [1986]161ITR673(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN305(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. Two common questions are posed, namely :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Data Processing Machines are office appliances and are, therefore, ineligible for the allowance of development rebate to the assessee for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the devaluation loss of Rs. 42,44,932 is an allowable revenue loss in the assessment year 1967-68 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the answer to be given to the first question is covered by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case in CIT v. I. B. M. World Trade Corporation : [1981]130ITR739(Bom) . The first question shall, accordingly, be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.3. The facts that are set out are in relation to the second question.4. The assessment years...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Swadeshi Dyeing, Bleaching and Prin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: (1980)50CTR(Bom)212
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Counsel are agreed that the Tribunal's order has proceeded on the basis that the amount of Rs. 50,000, received by the assessee-firm has the value of good-will, was not assessable as a long term capital gain in view of the fact that it was self generating assets. Counsel are agreed that, in the circumstances, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Shetty : [1981]128ITR294(SC) . the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered.2. No order as to costs....
Commissiowner of Income-tax Vs. Indo-nippon Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)85; [1986]161ITR635(Bom); 1985MhLJ867; [1986]24TAXMAN128(Bom)
Kania, J.1. Only one question has been referred to us for determination in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That question runs as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Indo-Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. was a company in which the public were substantially interested within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the years under reference ?'2. Although the statement of the case is somewhat long, the relevant facts are very few. The assessee company was incorporated in 1960 for manufacturing plasticizers in collaboration with Nichimen & Co. of Osaka, Japan, which we propose to refer to hereafter as 'the Japanese company'. By April 1, 1964, the assessee company had issued 27,000 shares at cost price. Eight thousand three hundred and forty-four of these shares were held by a private limited company and 9,900 of these shares were held by the Japanese company. The remaining shareholdings were relatively small. Th...
Krishnan Gopi Vs. P.S. Bhaskaran, Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)113; [1986]161ITR631(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of M/s. Honest Engineering Corporation at Mulund, Bombay. The petitioner is assessed as an individual under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. For the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner was served with a notice of demand dated June 15, 1974, calling upon him to pay advance tax of Rs. 1,505. Inadvertently this amount was not paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, on March 12, 1975, the petitioner filed an estimate showing a total income of Rs. 50,000. The tax payable on the said amount was Rs. 13,000. The return of income for the assessment year 1975-76 should have been filed by the petitioner on or before July 30, 1975. The petitioner, however, filed the return on September 15, 1976. The return showed a total income of Rs.59,290. The petitioner did not pay the income-tax due under the said return. He paid a sum of Rs. 18,000 as self-assessment tax on November 23,1977. The petitioner ...
Raza Ali Gulam HussaIn Zaboli of Bombay Vs. Ratilal Amritlal Shah of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR466; (1985)87BOMLR450
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The dispute, which is the subject matter of this Notice of Motion and of the suit in which the Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant, relates to a portion of the shop situate in Mehemadi Mention, Gokhale Road (South), Dadar, Bombay-400 028. There is no dispute that the present plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the said shop. There is further no dispute that a portion of the said shop has been in occupation of the defendant (who has taken out the present Notice of Motion) and the defendant has been carrying on the business of chemist in the said portion, whereas, in the remaining portion, the plaintiff carries on hotel business. The dispute in this case revolves around quite narrow a question viz. whether the plaintiff inducted the defendant in the said portion of the shop for conducting the plaintiff's business of chemist of the defendant was given only some space in the shop and he was carrying on his own business of chemist therein. There is no dispu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Swadeshi Dyeing, Bleaching and Prin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)212
Bharucha, J. - This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Counsel are agreed that the Tribunals order has proceeded on the basis that the amount of Rs. 50,000, received by the assessee-firm has the value of good-will, was not assessable as a long term capital gain in view of the fact that it was self generating assets. Counsel are agreed that, in the circumstances, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Shetty : [1981]128ITR294(SC) . the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered.No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. I. Chatterji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)129; [1986]161ITR535(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN251(Bom)
Bearucha, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, this reference is made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to pose the question :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction for municipal taxes was allowable under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while determining the annual value in the case of self-occupied property ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee is the owner of a house property at Koregaon Park, Poona. He was occupying it himself. The Income-tax Officer computed the income from this self-occupied house property at Rs. 8,090, as against Rs. 5,663 returned by the assessee. In doing so, the Income-tax Officer did not allow deduction for municipal taxes in the sum of Rs. 3,032, in view of section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal. The Revenue went up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which, upon a construction of section 23, held that the deduction ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR716(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Surtax Act'), by section 18 thereof. The assessee is the National Rayon Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The years of assessment with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the relevant previous years being calendar years ended on December 31, 1965, and December 31, 1966, respectively. In the balance-sheet of the company for the said two previous years, there was an item of gratuity reserve of Rs. 17 lakhs and and an item of debenture redemption reserve of Rs. 79 lakhs. We are not quite sure about the correctness of the figure, particularly regarding the debenture redemption reserve, but we are not concerned with whether the said figures are correct. From the balance-sheet, copies whereof have been tendered in the court and by consent taken on reco...
Mandakini Pundalik Salkar Vs. Chandrasen Raikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom172
1. This appeal by the original defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 29th Sept. 1984 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, decreed the suit filed against the appellant and consequently, annulled their marriage solemnized on 30 the Dec. 1978, and further held that the respondent is entitled to recover the gold ornaments mentioned in the plaint, from the appellant.2. The relevant facts may be stated. The appellant and the respondent got married under the Civil law on 30th Dec. 1978. This marriage was solemnized by the Civil Registrar of Vasco da Gama. Sometime after the said marriage, it appears that differences of opinion arose between the respondent and the appellant and ultimately, the respondent filed a suit for annulment of the said marriage on the ground that, on inquiries he had come to know that the appellant is an illegitimate child and that if he had known this circumstance, he would not have married her. He also prayed for the return of ...
Ramesh H. Jadhwani Vs. Savita Ramesh Jadhwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR329; (1985)87BOMLR480
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1.Efforts at reconciliation having failed, mainly due to the un-understandable attitude of the husband, these two revision applications have to be disposed of on their own merits.2. These two revisions petitions-one filed by the wife and the other by the husband-arise out of the order (Exh. 18-A) in Misc. Application No. 12 of 1983. That was a petition under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance pending Hindu Marriage Petition No. 62 of 1982 for divorce filed by the husband against the wife. That marriage petition filed on 28-4-1982, was decreed ex parte on 13-12-1982. Misc. Application No. 12 of 1983 for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 12-1-1983. While it was pending, an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed claiming Rs. 3000/- per month by way of interim maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- towards the expenses of the proceedings. That petition was allowed in part by the III Extra Assistant Judge,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »