Mumbai Court November 1988 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. Ormerods (i.) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)192; [1989]176ITR470(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The first of the aforementioned references involves the assessment year 1967-68. The second involves the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is the same. In the first reference the questions read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the newly established undertaking of the assessee-company fulfilled the requirements of section 84(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as to the number of workers employed in the manufacturing process carried on by the undertaking with the aid of power during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, even though the number of workers so employed was less than 10 during some part of that previous year ? (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in importing the concept of average number of workers in the manner it did while deciding the question whether the said industrial undertaking fulfilled the requirements of section 84(2) of the Income-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR151(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred to this court at the instances of the Department is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 5,98,527, Rs. 1,37,328 and Rs. 2,47,300 were exempt from assessment to tax as capital gains on the ground that the relevant lands were agricultural lands ?'2. The assessment years involved in this reference are 1963-64, 1965-66 and 1966-67, for which the relevant previous years ended on March 31, 1963, March 31, 1965, and March 31, 1966, respectively. The assessee had extensive lands in the villages of Pahadi, Oshivara, Dindoshi, Goregaon, etc., with the area of Greater Bombay. For the assessment year 1957-58 to 1959-60, the value of these lands was not assessed to wealth-tax on the ground that these were agricultural lands to which the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was not applicable. For the next two assessments years, i.e., 1960-61 and 1961-62, the Wealth-tax Officer took the view that circumstances had changed an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Raptakos Brett and Co. (P) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: [1988]177ITR202(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference concerns the assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71 and raises at the instance of the Revenue the following questions:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that all the employees of the assessee-company were the beneficiaries under the trust 'Trustees of Raptakos Brett and Co. P. Ltd., Employees' Service Gratuity Fund' and as such the beneficiaries were specifically known and determine at the end of each accounting year and that further their shares in the income of the said trues fund were known and determinate ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the said trust fund received by the trustees for each of the eight assessments 1963-64 to 1970-71 was assessable to income-tax under the provisions of section 161 and not under those of section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The Tribunal came...
Aanandkumar Raghunath Ray Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom293; 1988(4)BomCR143
Dharamdhikari, J.1. In this writ petition an order passed by the second additional Sessions Judge, Thane. D/- 25th of July 1988 remanding back the matter to the Authorised Officer is challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.2. A tempo bearing registration No. MRL 5998 is owned by the petitioner. It is his case that he purchased this tempo from one Mansing Nanaji Chavan and it is being used as a public carrier. On information received by the Range Forest Officer, flying squad, Shahapur, this tempo come to be seized. The tempo was found containing logs of teek wood being kept hidden under the beaps of rice husk. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner and one Shivaji Jadhav were found seated in the tempo. Since it was noticed that illegally cut forest wood was carried in the tempo it came to be seized. The Forest Officer thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the tempo seized shold not be confiscated. In respons...
Anandrao Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Madhavrao Ramrao Kanase and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR256
A.D. Tated, J.1 Both the writ petitions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Satara on 26th April, 1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1987 whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 1986 whereby he had decreed the plaintiffs-'landlords' suit for ejectment of the defendant-defendant-tenant. Writ Petition No. 3617 of 1988 has been filed by the original defendant-tenant while Writ Petition No. 3692 of 1988 has been filed by the original plaintiffs-landlords.2. The facts necessary for the decision of those writ petitions may be briefly stated thus : The suit premises bearing C.T.S Nos. 9-A and 9-B situate in Guruwar Peth of Satara City. They were occupied by the tenant Anandrao Ganpatrao Sable on monthly rent of Rs. 50 and education cess of Rs. 1.25 Those premises were purchased by the original plaintiffs i.e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Raptakos Brett and Co. (P.) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR202(Bom)
S. P. BHARUCHA J. - This reference concerns the assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71 and raises at the instance of the Revenue the following questions:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that all the employees of the assessee-company were the beneficiaries under the trust 'Trustees of Raptakos Brett and Co. P. Ltd., Employees Service Gratuity Fund' and as such the beneficiaries were specifically known and determine at the end of each accounting year and that further their shares in the income of the said trues fund were known and determinate ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the said trust fund received by the trustees for each of the eight assessments 1963-64 to 1970-71 was assessable to income-tax under the provisions of section 161 and not under those of section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The Tribunal came to t...
KishIn Shewaram Loungani Vs. R. C. Ghosalkar (inspector of Customs) an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1988
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas388(Bom); 1989(24)ECC12; 1989(20)LC408(Bombay); 1989(41)ELT47(Bom)
V.S. Kotwaj, J.1. Heard Shri. N.H. Gurusahani with Shri. S. H. Gurusahani, Shri A. A. Irani and Dr. Ashok Bathija as also A.K. Desai and Shri H. E. Mooman, learned counsel for the petitioners is all the petitions, and Shri M. K. Patwardhan, senior counsel, Central Government, for respondent No. 1, Customs Department, and Smt. K. D. Ranadive, learned Public Prosecutor, for respondent No. 2, the State.2. Perused the relevant papers and previous orders.3. For obvious reasons this bunch of petition can well be disposed of by a common order, more so since the pattern of allegations and the pattern of submissions are more or less identical and actually most of the orders recorded by the learned trial Magistrate are not only identical but are common. This would not cause prejudice to either of the sides and learned counsel for both the sides have accepted this position.4. The petitioners in all the petitions run certain jewellery shops in this metropolis under different styles and names. They...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR449(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question which we have to consider in this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission of Rs. 4,59,000 was wholly exempt under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question arises in relation to the assessment year 1970-71.3. Under an agreement dated April 1, 1954, 'Stankoimport', Moscow, granted to the assessee sole agency for the sale of its ball and roller bearings for the territories mentioned on payment of trade commission. The assessee was required to send, under the terms of this agreement, truthful reports of the activities of competitors to Stankoimport, particularly as regards their prices, terms of delivery and technical designs. After the 10-year span covered by this agreement expired, Stankoimport addressed a letter dated February 25, 1965, to the assessee. The letter stated that Stankoimport agree...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amar Charitable Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR85(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question that arises for consideration reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donation of shares of the value of Rs. 2,50,000 received towards the corpus of the trust can be taxed as deemed income of the trust under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the answer to be given to the question is covered by our judgment in Trustees of Kilachand Devchand, Foundation v. CIT : [1988]172ITR382(Bom) . Following that judgment the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Caristrap Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR642(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises one question for the assessment year 1971-72. It reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in withdrawing development rebate of Rs. 35,601 allowed in the original assessment order even though the assessee-company had not created the full amount of development rebate reserve, viz., 75 per cent of the cost of plant and machinery of Rs. 83,482 during the previous year as required under the provisions of Section 33 read with Section 34 of the Income-tax Act ?'2. In also raises two questions for the assessment year 1972-73 which reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled to the set off of unabosrbed development rebate of Rs. 46,681 pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72 against the profits of the assessee for the assessment year 1972-73, even though it had not created any reserve i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »