Mumbai Court March 1987 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.
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR541(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The assessee has sought this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question posed reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in valuing the sugarcane produced by the assessee in its own farms at Rs. 44, Rs. 45, Rs. 46 and Rs. 47 per ton instead of Rs. 51.75 as claimed by the assessee for the purpose of ascertaining the manufacturing profits for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-6 ?'2. The assessment years with which we are concerned in this reference are the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessee manufactures and sells sugar. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years with which we are concerned, the assessee owned sugarcane farms. During these years, the assessee received supplies of sugarcane for the manufacture of sugar from these farms. It also purchased sugarcane from outside cultivators called Bagaitdars. The Governme...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: [1987]167ITR740(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Three questions are referred in these reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act.2. Counsel are agreed that the answer to the first question is governed by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT : [1979]119ITR900(Bom) , and that the expenditure is deductible.3. Counsel are agreed that the answers to be given to questions Nos. 3(i) and 3(ii) are governed by the decision of this court in the aforesaid matter and that these questions must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.Question No. 1 and questions Nos. 3(i) and 3(ii) are answered accordingly.Question No. 2 reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 78,712 being the amount paid during the intervaluation period ended December 31, 1959, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, and Rs. 42,022 paid during the intervaluation period ended December 3...
P.M. Nadgauda Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR674; [1987(54)FLR539]; (1994)IIILLJ401Bom; 1987MhLJ353
Sawant, J.1. The petitioner retired on June 30, 1980 from the services of the State Government as a Secretary in the Public Works Department. By its order dated January 21, 1981 the Government sanctioned to him provisional pension equal to 100 per cent of the pension that he was entitled to, with effect from July 1, 1980. The very same order also stated that the orders regarding the death-cum-gratuity would be issued in due course.2. Subsequently, on July 20, 1984 the Government instituted departmental proceedings against him under Rules 26 and 27 read with Rule 165 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules'). The departmental proceedings were on the basis of the petitioner's conduct during the period July 1971 to May 1974 in his capacity as the Superintending Engineer and from July 25, 1977 till the date of his retirement viz. June 30, 1980 variously as the Chief Engineer, Joint Secretary and Secretary to the Government. The...
Manku S/O Ragho Gond Vs. Narendra S/O Panjabrao Dhote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR275
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-3-1982 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the tenancy authorities was dismissed by a speaking order at the time of admission.2. Briefly, the facts are that originally the respondent owned the fields in question i.e. the field Survey No. 90/1 and the field Survey No. 98/1 of village Kuti, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. There was an agreement of sale dated 20-10-1958 in respect of the above fields between the respondent and one Digamber Thakre under which the respondent had agreed to sell the suit fields to Digambar Thakre for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. An amount Rs. 2,000/- was paid in cash at the time of the agreement and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,000/- was agreed to be paid in yearly instalment of Rs. 500/- and after full payment the sale-deed was to be executed. The said Digamber Thakre was put in possession of the suit fields o...
Chandrabhan Sitaram Pakmode Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR5; 1988MhLJ407
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition by the non-tribal transferee is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before it.2. The Additional Tahsildar, Warora, passed an order on 15th December, 1977 in suo motu proceedings started under section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and after hearing the parties, made an order on 15th December, 1977 directing restoration of 3 acres of land from Survey No. 99/3 situated at Atmurdi to the tribal transferor. An award was also passed awarding Rs. 36/- as compensation to the petitioner on 20th November, 1978. According to the petitioner though the impugned order was passed on 15th December, 1977, it was communicated to him on 28-9-1979 on which date he applied for a certified copy and it was delivered to him on the same day. Without filing an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the petitioner filed...
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR83; 1987MhLJ593
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Parties by Counsel. A short question which is raised in this Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant is that unless an approach notice under section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, 'the B.I.R. Act') is given the respondent No. 3 whose services were terminated by the appellant bank cannot be held to be an employee within the meaning of the expression 'employee' as defined under section 2(13) of the said Act which is applicable to the appellant bank. The submission thus is that if the respondent No. 3 is not an employee within the meaning of the B.I.R. Act the would not be an employee within the meaning of the said expression under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') also and his application, therefore, under the said Act would not maintainable. It may be stated at this stage that as per section 3(5) of the Act if the industry to which this Act is applicable...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trikamlal Maneklal (H.U.F.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)251; [1987]168ITR733(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question we are called upon to answer 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 market value of the shares at the time of acquisition by the assessee Hindu undivided family is to be taken as the cost thereof to the assessee for the purpose of computation of the capital gains ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Its karta, one T. Maneklal, had in 1954 acquired shares of M/s. T. Maneklal . at their face value of Rs. 100 a share. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the said Maneklal threw these shares into the hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, two hundred and fifty of these shares were sold by the Hindu undivided family for a sum of Rs. 86,250. In the previous year rel...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-viii, Bombay Vs. Govindram and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)277; [1987]168ITR613(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 raises the following question :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, any penalty was leviable against the assessee, firm under section 271(1)(a) of the said Act ?'We are concerned with the assessment year 1967-68, the previous year for which ended on March 31, 1967. The assessee is a registered firm. Its return was due on or before September 30, 1967. As it was filed late, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. The assessee claimed that it was a broker under the National Defence Remittance Scheme and that the transactions thereunder had caused a long delay in the finalisation of its accounts. The explanation of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000...
Narayan Hosiery P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR504(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company had concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in regard to the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 1,40,137 for the assessment year 1956-5 ?'2. The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee had in its books an account in the name of M/s. Ramchandra Ramkumar in which there was an opening credit balance of Rs. 22,99,686. By crediting the said account with Rs. 1,40,137 on account of interest, the assessee debited the same to the interest account and claimed deduction. The departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal found that the said concern was not established to be genuine and no interest was paid or was payable by the assessee ...
Richardson Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)16; [1987]169ITR516(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to this court for the opinion at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following payments are items of capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue deductions : (a) Rs. 10,453 spent by way of stamp duty for execution lease agreement dated April 3, 1967; (b) Payment of Rs. 8,396 paid to M/s. Ravee A. Sood during the previous year under the agreement dated April 3, 1967; and (c) Rs. 2,44,888 incurred in raising further share capital of Rs. 22,50,00 ?'2. The assessee is a company and the proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1968-69. During the previous year, the assessee obtained on lease a portion of Tiecicon House, 18, Haines Road, Bombay. As per the lease agreement, which is dated April 3, 1967, the lease is for a period of ten years with effect from July 1, 1966, with provision for renewal for two consecutive...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »