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.
Feredoon K. Irani Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1985
Reported in: [1986]15ITD627(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - The assessee is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the assessee is liable to pay capital gains on transfer of a flat in Shreyas co-operative housing society in favour of Shri Yogendra Kumar Modi.2. During the accounting year ending 31-3-1981, the assessee agreed to sell flat No. 1 in Shreyas building which belonged to the assessee. The agreement was entered into on 28-8-1980. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs being the full consideration for the flat and agreed to relinquish in favour of Shri Yogendra Kumar Modi, all the right, title and interest in the flat along with qualifying shares in the Shreyas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.3. The assessee, however, had not declared any capital gains for taxation in his return of income. It was contended that the co-operative society had still not accepted the application of the transferee for being recognised as a member and, therefore, the sale had not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.N. Nadkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR468; (1986)52CTR(Bom)213; [1986]161ITR544(Bom); 1985MhLJ814; [1986]25TAXMAN9(Bom)
Kania, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Income-tax Act'). The said questions run as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the scholarship amount of Rs. 2,400 given by the employer to the two children of the assessee-employee is not a benefit in terms of section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the scholarship amount of Rs. 2,400 given by the employer to the two children of the assessee-employee is exempt under section 10(16) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Question No. 1 was referred at the instance of the Commissioner and question No. 2 was referred at the instance of the assessee.3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1970-71 and 1971-72, the relevant acco...
Narayan Motiram Khilnani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR122
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this case the petitioner has challenged the order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Greater Bombay dated 1-4-1985.2. We have heard Shri Gupte the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the record produced before us. From the bare perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the reliance is placed in the said show cause notice on, in all 23 convictions recorded upto 28th November, 1978. Earlier 22 convictions are of the year 1972. It is pertinent to note that in the year 1981 an order of externment was passed against the petitioner externing him for a period of two years which must be obviously on the basis of those very cases. This position is not disputed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in his affidavit. However, it is stated by him that four more cases of cheating are pending against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay bearing ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Belapur Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR516(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN70(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. It poses the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on withdrawals used for the purpose of the payment of dividend was a revenue expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred for the purchase of capital asset and the study of diffuser working before the purchase are to be capitalised and both depreciation and/or development rebate allowed thereon ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of this court in CIT v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1983]143ITR469(Bom) .3. The facts that we state relate to the second question. The years of assessment involved are 1967-68 and 1968...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)113; [1986]161ITR473(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises two questions at the instance of the assessee and two questions at the instance of the Revenue.2. The questions raised by the assessee read thus :'l. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loans and the current liabilities relating to the undertaking at Jaipur should be deducted from the assets for both the assessment years for the purpose of arriving at the capital employed for determining the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 1,22,371 and Rs. 7,125, respectively, received for the two assessment years on the sale of import entitlement were the taxable income of the assessee ?'3. It is common ground that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [198...
T. Khemchand Tejoomal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)181; [1986]161ITR492(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN72(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 question referred to us for our determination in the reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the income of the assessee, the sum of Rs. 4,400 was rightly added ?'2. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The relevant assessment year is 1962-63, for which the relevant previous year is the accounting year March 25, 1961, to March 31, 1962. The assessee is a registered firm doing business mainly in cloth. The assessee secured a licence for importing automobile spare parts. The assessee then entered into a contract to import and sell to M/s. Bipin Automobiles 3,100 capacitors at a profit of 50 per cent. on C. I. F. value. There was a further condition in the contract that the purchaser was to bear all the expenses, including customs duty, etc. Pursuant to this agreement, the assessee placed an order f...
Omprakash Brahamanand Pohuja Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR92
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Overseer with the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority vide order dated 22-7-1964, with effect from 19-6-1964. Thereafter on 9-9-1970 he was appointed as a Deputy Engineer. On 18-12-1978 and 22-1-1979 he was given additional charge of the higher post. He was relieved of one of such additional charge on 6-3-1979 but was again given it on 29-6-1979 and relieved of it on 29-3-1980. Thereafter on 5-8-1980 and 17-8-1981, the respondents, who are junior to him in service, were promoted as Executive Engineers. The petitioner made various representations to the higher authorities and also sought an interview with the Vice-President, but the representations came to be rejected and unfortunately he was also not given the interview by the Vice-President. Thereafter Vide order dated 27-8-1982 respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were promoted as Executive Engineers superseding the claims of the petitioner who was senior i...
Amarchand Jalan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)186; [1986]160ITR805(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN468(Bom)
Kania, J.1. In this case, eight applications under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 were made by the assessee and the other eight applications were filed by the CIT (Central), Bombay. On these applications, the following questions have been referred to us for our determination in this reference under s. 256(1) of the said Act.(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest paid on borrowings utilised in the purchase of shares in the names of the wife and minor child of the assessee were allowable in computing his taxable income for the asst. yrs. 1963-64 to 1970-71 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that it was only income that arose from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the spouse or minor child of the individual that could come in for consideration under s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961 and that the assessee could not claim for adjustment or losses under that section ?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Advani Oerlikon Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)174; [1986]161ITR449(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN392(Bom)
Kania, J.1. Only one question has been referred to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), and that question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 6,73,500 being `unallocated capital expenditure' was includible in the computation of the capital employed for the purpose of working out the relief admissible to the assessee company under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule l9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment year 1969-70 ?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The year of assessment, which is relevant for our purposes, is 1969-70 for which the relevant previous year is the one ended on March 31, 1969. During that year, the assessee was manufacturing and selling welding electrodes. In connection with the setting up of the Madras unit of the assessee, the assesse...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)210; [1986]160ITR814(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The questions, referred for our consideration at the instance of the Revenue in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of Rs. 44,726 realised on sale of 1,500 shares of Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. is includible in the total income of the Assesses-settler for the assessment year 1965-66 in terms of the provisions of section 64(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 3,000 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., settled upon trust by the assessee for the benefit of minor son, Ravi, vide deed dated March 13, 1964, could be said to have been transferred by the assessee to the trustees for adequate consideration ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income in respect of the above 3,000 shares of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. is includible in the total inco...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »