Mumbai Court November 1988 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)124; [1989]177ITR222(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The tribunal has referred one question to this court for opinion at the instance of the Department. The question reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest of Rs. 15,237 for delayed payment of income-tax is a deductible expenditure in computing the profits and gains within the meaning of sections 28 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1972-73. The business of the assessee is in real estate and money-lending. Both the business are carried on with common funds, during the previous year, the assessee earned a sum of Rs. 43,867 by way of interest in its money-lending business. It paid a sum of Rs. 15,852.67 by way of interest in the said business. The payment included a sum of Rs. 15,237 being interest paid to the Income-tax Department for allowing the assessee to make payment of its taxes in instal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pfizer Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)182; [1991]192ITR58(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference raises, at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the gratuity reserves appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company as on the first day of the respective previous years for 1967-68 to 1969-70 assessment years constituted reserves as contemplated in rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?''2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dollar revaluation reserves appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company as on the first day of the respective years relevant to 1968-69 and 1969-70 assessment years constitute reserves which were includible in the capital base under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue in the first question is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) . Th...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahman and ors. Vs. Dayaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC226
A.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 19-12-1986 dismissing the entire claim of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola. Deceased Mohammed Shafi was in the private employment as a driver. On 29-9-1983 at 2.30 a.m. he was crushed by Truck No. MHV 7703 while he was sleeping in the premises of Government Milk Dairy, Akola, at a place which is meant for parking of the trucks which come for loading and unloading milk cans. His parents and widow presented the claim petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lac for loss of life. In support of the claim, the claimants have examined P.W. 1 Shri Tayade, Security Officer of the Milk Scheme, PW 2 Abdul Rahim, father of the deceased and PW 3 Abdul Hamid, the Conductor. The learned Member of the Tribunal, taking into account evidence of non-applicant No. 1 Dayaram-driver of the truck, observed at the time of accident that when he turned the truck to the right sid...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR511(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of the Revenue in regard to the assessment year 1965-66 and the following question is posed :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to refund of Rs. 1,95,479 and interest thereon under section 214 on the Income-tax Officer satisfying itself in regard to the taxes paid on Pakistan by the production of collateral evidence in the shape of copies of assessment orders, notice of demand, etc., and in the absence of the certificate of assessment from the Pakistan authorities which the assessee is unable to produce?'2. The assessee is a public limited company which owns factories that manufacture cement. Two of these factories were situated within Pakistan. They were run till March, 1966, when they were closed down and sold off. The income, according to the assessee, from the two factories in Pakistan was included in the assessee's assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Caltex (India) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR239(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it is made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding that the assessee is engaged in priority industry and as such is entitled to relief under section 80E/80-I and to higher development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) is in law justified ?'2. The reference concerns the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73. The main business of the assessee was the distribution of petroleum products, it was also engaged in the blending of various grades of lubricating oil. In regard to the activity of blending, the assessee claimed that it was priority industry and was covered by the provisions of sections 80E and 80-I and section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, upheld the assessee's contention in further appeal.3. Section 33(1)(b)(B) is relevant in the context to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F. Racek and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR406(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question that is posed at the instance of the Revenue relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on tea, coffee, lunch, etc., for its customers was not entertainment expenditure and did not fall under the provisions of section 37(2) ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue is covered by this court's judgment in CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi : [1979]116ITR292(Bom) . Following that judgment, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gratuity Fund of the Employees of Easte ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR478(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.The question that is posed at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'accretion content' of Rs. 8,951 is assessable either as income or as capital gains in the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue that is involved is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Scindia Workshop Ltd., : [1979]119ITR526(Bom) . Having regard to that judgment, we answer the question thus : 'The accretion content' of Rs. 8,951 is assessable as income for the assessment year 1971-72.3. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Mrs. Kasturbai Walchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: [1990]181ITR47(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law at the instance of the Department and the assessee :2. At the instance of the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income of Rs. 41,726 from the investments referred to in paragraph 11 above would be exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act read with section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(h) of the Act ?'3. At the instance of the assessee :'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the application of the property of the trust for the benefit of specified persons can be said to be by way of compliance with the mandatory terms contained in clause 18 of the trust deed ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of section 13(1) would apply in view of the first proviso thereto ?' 4. We propose to first deal with the question of law referred...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Ramna Ram Son of Prakashrao Vs. Ereikal Son of BenjamIn Samuel Si ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR185
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order dated 8-9-1986 passed by the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur in Revenue Case No. 22/A-71 (6-A) of 1982-83, directing these proceedings to be filed has been challenged in this petition.2. The controversy encompassed in this petition is rather interesting. The factual positions giving rise to this litigation are not much disputed. One Ereikel son of Benjamin Samuel, the original respondent-1 in this petition, was occupying House No. 323 situated in Ward No. 65 Mohan Nagar, Nagpur. He was the Government servant and as such, these tenements were alloted to him by the House Allotment Officer sometimes in 1958 under Clause 23(1) of the C P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order). Samuel retired from Government service sometimes in 1974. However, he continued to be in possession thereafter. The house was subsequently purchased by the present petitioner Shri K.V. Ramna Rao on or about 1984. O...
Tag this Judgment!Jessasingh Uttamsingh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT693Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.S/49-12/76 SIIB, dated 19-12-1976 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay.2. The appellants are the Letter of Authority holders. As the Letter of Authority holders, they filed the Bill of Entry on behalf of the licence holder M/s. National Industries Ltd., Hyderabad and sought for clearance of goods comprising of spare parts of agricultural tractors, namely piston rings and gears totally valued at Rs. 20,357/-. They produced the Licence No. 1690126, dated 5-4-1971. The goods, on arrival were bonded. The date of import in this case is 20-5-1972. During the period when the goods were in bond and the clearance were sought for, proceedings were initiated by the Licensing Authority against the licence holder and the licence was cancelled by their I.T.C. order dated 11-7-1972. The said order was issued under Clause 9(c) of the Import (Control) Order. Again another order was issued on 17-11-1972 cancelling the same licence un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »