Mumbai Court December 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.
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR423(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Three questions arise at the instance of the assessee in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. they read thus:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,27,022 being the amount paid during the inter-valuation period ended March 31,1967, towards compensation payable under section 36 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to chief agents and special agents was not expenditure deductible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ?'(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,21,621 being the refund of income-tax received by the Corporation during the inter valuation period ended March 31,1967 in respect of the income tax assessments up to the assessment year 1967-68 of the income from the life insurance business of the erstwhile insurers whost business has been taken over by the Corporation should be allowed as a deduction while comput...
Bmco Transformers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR444(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Three questions are posed at the instance of the assessee and they read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 14,79,000 being loan from Industrial Finance Corporation of India was includible in the capital computation base of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 in view of section 80J(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961/rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The assessee in the appeal before the Tribunal was competent in law to raise an additional ground of appeal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had erred in holding that the capital employed in the new industrial undertaking had been correctly computed by the Income-tax Officer under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, by excluding the moneys borrowed from the bank amounting to Rs. 17,31,707 and other unsecured loan of Rs. 14,40,723 ?3. If the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR54(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law raised in this reference at th e instance of the Department is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire provision for gratuity made in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 was deductible expenditure under section 28 or section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein in this reference is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decisions in the case of CIT v. Andhra Prabha P. Ltd. : [1986]158ITR416(SC) and in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT : 1986ECR276(SC) and that following these decisions, 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....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lady Hirabai C. Jehangir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR60(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The questions of law referred to us in this reference at the instance of the Department read thus :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee suffered capital loss of Rs. 41,92,021 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital loss of Rs. 41,92,021 was liable to be set off against capital gains of Rs. 4,07,527 in the assessment year 1966-67 ?'2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee sold 4,509 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each, three shares of the face value of Rs. 50,000 each and three shares of the face value of Rs. 40,000 each of Cowasjee Jehangir Co., (Pvt.) Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 32,54,892. She exercised the option in the matter of computing the capital gains with reference to the market value of these shares as on January 1, 1954 instead of the cost price. The market value of these shares as on January 1, 1954 was Rs. 74,73,930. Finding, however, that in...
Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR111(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. paper-books dispensed with.2. The questions to be considered at the instance of the assessee read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,10,279 realised on the sale of 'import entitlements' was exempt under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or was a non-taxable, capital receipt and2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the aforesaid sum was eligible for rebate under section 2(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, of 1967 ?'3. Counsel are agreed that both the questions must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, in view of the judgment of this court in Metal Rolling works Pvt., Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]142ITR170(Bom) .4. The questions are so answered.5. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)193; [1989]177ITR523(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Department is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the written down value of the assets in question for the assessment year 1956-57 required to be computed under the provisions of clause (b) of section 10(5), independently of clause (a) thereof ?'2. It is common ground that the assets in dispute were acquired during the previous year for the assessment year 1955-56 and not during the previous year for the assessment year 1956-57 which is the year under consideration. The question that arose for consideration was whether depreciation is to be computed on these assets under section 10(5) (a) or under section 10(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It is true that the assessee had not claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1955-56. This, however, does not mean that the assets were acquired during the previous year under consideration. The assets having been acquired before the pre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR620(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to us in this reference at the instance of the Department reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of the capital of the assessee-company for purposes of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, no reduction on account of the relief obtained by the assessee in its income-tax assessments under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was to be made and that rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964, was not to be applied for making any proportionate reduction on such account ?'2. Counsel are agreed that in view of this court's decision in the case of CIT v. Century Spinning and . : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) , the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question is so answered. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagindas M. Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR393(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred to us at the instance of the Department in this reference reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in computing the 'dividend' under section 2(22)(e) restricting 'advances or loans' to cash transactions only and accordingly determining such dividend at Rs. 28,500 and Rs. 10,000, respectively ?'2. It is common ground that the assessee is a shareholder in the company styled as Magnalal Chhaganlal Pvt. Ltd., and 'is a person who has substantial interest in the company' for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. He also carries on a proprietary business in the name and style of Rainbow Paints. The company maintains a running account in the name of Rainbow Paints and during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 the years involved herein, the running account disclosed cash payments by the company to the assessee at Rs. 1,31,672 and Rs. 3,8...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR443(Bom); 1989MhLJ118
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of section 32(1)(ii) read with section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer had bay power or jurisdiction to ascertain and impose the depreciation allowance upon the assessee ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70. The previous year whereof ended on June 30, 1968. The assessee filed a revised return enclosed with a covering letter which stated that the depreciation claim made in the original return was withdrawn and no depreciation was claimed for the assessment year 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer took the view that if the assessee failed to furnish the particulars required by section 34, two alternative courses were open to him: he could refuse to allow depreciation or he could make his own valuation o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vicks Products Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR556(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to us by the Tribunal. They read thus:At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said losses of Rs. 15,19,078 and/or Rs. 1,57,910 arising from the devaluation of the Indian rupee arose in the course of or identical to the assessee's business and were allowable as revenue deductions ?'2. At the instance of the assessee:'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 9,92,292 was an allowable revenue loss ?'3. Counsel are agreed that the question referred to us at the instance of the Department is covered by this court's decisions in CIT v. IBM World Trade Corporation : [1986]161ITR673(Bom) and CIT v. Vitre Engineering Co. : [1984]150ITR183(Bom) , and that following the above said decisions, the question requires to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the question so answered.4. As regard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »