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. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)60; [1989]177ITR124(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Department, the following three questions are raised:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the deduction of the rent of Rs. 4,200 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,603.19 ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 9,156.90 ?'2. The assessee paid rent of Rs. 8,400 in respect of a flat in Anita Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay. Half the flat was used for the residence of the officers of the company and the remaining half was used as its guest house. The assessee had also incurred an expenditure of Rs. 10,760 on the maintenance of the guest house as per details hereunder:Rs.1. Expenses incurred in maintenance and provisions 4,809.832. Salary of Cook-cum-servant 2,400.003. curtains for the flat 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dekka Chemicals (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR427(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, has fairly conceded that the question that arises for consideration in this reference made at the instance of the Revenue has to be decided against the Revenue in view of an earlier judgment of this court.2. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing carry forward of development rebate in spite of the fact that the assessee had not created any development rebate reserve during the relevant previous year as contemplated by section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee having regard to the judgment of this court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO : [1973]92ITR241(Bom) ....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himalayan Tiles and Marbles Pvt Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR293(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Revenue.2. When it reached hearing yesterday, Mr. C. N. Mistry a partner of Mulla and Mulla, Craigie, Blunt and Caroe, applied to us for discharge of his firm as advocates of the assessee. He gave us copies of letters written by the advocate to the assessee and the acknowledgments thereof. The letters asked for instructions but Mr. Mistry stated that no instructions had been given. It was then noticed that the appearance of the advocates was not shown on board and the matter was adjourned till today to enable Mr. Mistry to ascertain whether an appearance had, in fact,. been filed. Mr. Mistry now states that investigation into his papers reveals a duplicate copy of the vakalatnama but it is not signed. We cannot, therefore, give the advocates a discharge. But, we must, in these circumstances, proceed on the footing that service of the reference has been duly effected upon the assessee and that the assessee has full knowle...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Polychem Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR333(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Department raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee-company of Rs. 6,00,000 and of Rs. 24,54,303 in terms of the 'Polysterene Plant Contract' of January 18, 1956, read with the agreement of September 20, 1955, and Dow Styrene Process Plant agreement of August 15, 1960, respectively, resulted in its acquiring a 'plant' as defined in section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on which depreciation is properly allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the said Act for each of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 both inclusive ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]157ITR86(SC) , and that the question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. The question is, accordingly, answered. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pfizer Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR140(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The only question to be decided in this reference reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of the capital for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, only such part of amount credited by the assessee in its accounts as provision for taxation that was actually found necessary to be utilised of that purpose has to be excluded and not the full amount of such credit ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) .3. The question is so answered. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Maneklal Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR344(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question to be considered in this reference reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the technical fees of Rs. 47,21,419, Rs. 8,28,892 and Rs. 10,16,261 under the collaboration in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue is concluded by a judgment of this court in the assessee's own case reported in CIT v. T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]115ITR725(Bom) and that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. The question is so answered.4. No. order as to costs....
Hazarimal Rekhchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)177; [1989]177ITR69(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The question of law in this reference at the instance of the assessee reads thus:'Whether an appeal lies against an order charging interest of Rs. 11,475 under proviso (iii) to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1962, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?'2. The facts are admitted. The assessment of the assessee, a registered firm, for the assessment year 1966-67 was completed on total income of Rs. 98,445. Besides determining the tax payable by the firm, the Income-tax Officer charged interest of Rs. 11,475 under proviso(iii) to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was not aggrieved by the determination of the total income or the tax payable thereon as such. Its only ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was against the charge of interest under section 139(1). In response to a query from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to how the appeal filed by the assessee was competent, the assesse relied on the provisions of...
Sadhana Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR319(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The questions that arise in this reference made at the instance of the assessee read thus :' (1) Whether the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the advance or loan made to a corporate entity? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 above is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable in respect of the credit balance appearing in the books of the assessee?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70, the corresponding previous year having ended on March 31, 1969. The assessee is a private limited company. It holds 10,940 shares (out of 11,000 shares) of Harshad Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. (now referred to 'Harshad'). Harshad is thus the assessee's subsidiary company. Harshad had accumulated profits to the extent of Rs. 86,988 on March 31, 1969. It was a creditor of the assessee during the relevant previous year in amounts larger than t...
Francisco Luis Jose D Souza Vs. Vithal Bhadu Tamboskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom303; 1988(2)BomCR440; (1989)91BOMLR570
Couto, J.1. Whether the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction of a suit for mandatory injunction and meane profits can be enhanced while filing an appeal against the decree of the trial Court by adding amount of mesne profits claimed till that date altering thereby the appellate forum from the District Court to the High court, is the moot question that this appeal gives rise to at the threshold. 2. The appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profits against the respondent and valued if for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 12,000/-. He quantified the mesne profits payable to him at the time of the institution of the suit at Rs. 5000/- and further claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the month of June, 1980 onwards. By judgment dated 8th Jan. 1985, the learned Addl. Civil Judge S.D, Margao dismissed the appellant's suit and hence, this appeal was filed in this Court, valuing it at Rs. 74,000/- on basis of a claim of 67 mont...
Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Govind Dagadu Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR400; (1988)90BOMLR672
A.D. Tated, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st November, 1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri, in Regular Civil Suit No. 570 of 1982 whereby he granted an interim injunction staying the order of suspension of the petitioner defendant and the same order was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar on 29th September, 1984 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 327 of 1983.2. The petitioner No 1 defendant No. 1 Council and the petitioner No.2-defendant No. 2 Chief Officer appointed the respondant-plaintiff as temporary Sanitary Inspector and Food Inspector with effect from 5th January, 1973 in the pay-scale of Rs. 145-5-185-E.B. 6-233-7-240 plus the dearness allowance as per the rules framed by the petitioner No.1-Council. The order of appointment is dated 3rd January, 1973. It is at.Ex. 19. On 18th March ,1973 the President of the petitioner No. 1-Council addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Maharash...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »