Mumbai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Company Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR562(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The questions of law referred to us in this reference at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was a company in which the public were substantially interested during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-7 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of 'building and machinery under erection' and 'advance for purchase of machinery and raw material' should be included in the capital base under rule 19A for the purpose of working out the relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-7 ?'2. It is common ground that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has followed its earlier orders for the assessment years 1964-64 and 1965-66 for deciding the above two questions in favour of the assessee and though the Revenue had come up in reference against the said e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR288(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises three questions, all at the instance of the Revenue. For the assessment year 1969-70, two questions are raised which read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in including the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 (which the assessee-company received from the Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., as part of the consideration for the technical know-how supplied by the former to the latter) as profit attributable to its priority industry for the purpose of the deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1969-70 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit of Rs. 1,78,606 on the sale of the assets and miscellaneous receipts of Rs. 2,65,548 should be included in the profits attributable to the priority industry for the purpose of the de...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.S. Sabavalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Bom)194; [1988]171ITR191(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. The question raised is this :'Having regard to the fact that the amendment to section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was expressly given retrospective effect by section 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer was not competent to rectify the assessment of the assessee to tax the value of jewellery on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the records capable of rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The answer to be given to the question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. M. Bhatia, AAC v. J. M. Shah : [1985]156ITR474(SC) , Having regard to that judgment, the question posed to us must be answered in favour of the Revenue.3. Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, however, submitted that what was encompassed in the word 'jewellery' was itself a debatable question and that, therefo...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.N. Tarawia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)64; [1988]170ITR569(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The wealth-tax returns of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were due on June 30, 1965, and June 30, 1966, respectively. The assessee filed the returns for both the assessment years only on July 31, 1970. The assessee was called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for the delay. The assessee's explanation was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer and he imposed upon the assessee a penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,620 for the assessment year 1965-66 and in the sum of Rs. 1,649 for the assessment year 1966-67. In so doing, the Wealth-tax Officer applied, for the period of default up to March 31, 1969, the provisions of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as they stood before the amendment thereof, effective on and from April 1, 1969, made by section 24(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, and, for the period of default subsequent to April 1, 1969, the amended provision. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected t...
Ramlal Son of Badriprasad Mishra Vs. Madhaorao Son of Chintaman Sontak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR216
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A private compliant was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pusad, by the present non-applicant Madhaorao Chintaman Sontakke, alleging that the present applicant (original accused) has committed offences punishable under sections 177, 192, 199, 200, 415, 417, 420, 463,464, 465 and 471 of the India Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on recording the verification of the complaint issued process under all the sections. The accused put in his appearance and moved that some of the offences cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court due to a legal bar created by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the order that sections 177, 200, 463 and 471 be struck off from the process. This order passed by the learned Magistrate on 12-9-1984 has not been challenged. The learned Magistrate has now taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 192, 415, 417, 420, 463, 464 and 465 of the In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›