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.
Shardaben B. Mafatlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)162; [1989]177ITR463(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This reference raises only once question of law at the instance of the assessee. The question reads thus:'Whether, in the absence of any specific rule under the Gift-tax Act providing for the manner of valuation of unquoted equity shares, the Tribunal was in error in looking into rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, as a guide for the purposes of ascertaining, in accordance with the recognised break-up method of valuation of shares, the market value of unquoted equity shares, of Surat Cotton Spg. and Mfg. Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd., as on the date of the gift ?'2. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, she had, inter alia, gifted 2,250 ordinary shares of Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., to three donees, viz., a trust and two members of her family. The paid-up value of the shares was Rs. 75 each. In her gift-tax return, she declared the value of the gifted shares at Rs. 254 per share as the market v...
Shri Mahadeo Deosthan Wadali Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR649; 1989MhLJ269
B.G. Deo, J.1. A question of some importance that is raised in this writ petition is whether the Joint Charity Commissioner can, under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), revoke the sanction given to a public trust for alienation of its immovable property by a sale deed, after the sale deed is executed pursuant to the sanction granted under Section 36(i) of the Act and the property alienated by the trust no longer retains the character of property as that of a public trust. In other words, can the Joint Charity Commissioner invoke the power under Section 36(2) of the Act for revoking the sanction after the sanction merges into the sale-deed and there remains nothing to' be revoked. The facts necessary to understand the controversy involved in this petition may be briefly summarised thus.2. Shri Mahadeo Deosthan, Wadali' is a registered Public Trust. The petitioners 2 to 5 and respondent No. 2 are the trustees of the said trust. Th...
Nutan Dye Chem Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-original bearing No.1/MP/84, dated 29/1/84 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Baroda.2. The facts of the case for disposal of the appeal can be briefly stated as below: The appellants are the manufacturers of S.O.Dyes and they have been granted permission under Rule 56A for Ortho Dyhydro Chloride for manufacture of S.O.Dyes. This permission which was granted on 25-8-1976 was being availed of since then. In the year 1981 they have imported the consignment of Dianisidine Base (Blue B Base) classified under the erstwhile T.I 14D for the purpose of countervailing duly. When they received the consignment under B/E dated 12-12-1981 they noticed that the imputs had suffered countervailing duty under C.E.T. 14D and hence they submitted D-3 application straightaway. Acting on the basis of D-3 application the consignment was also verified on the following day and credit was recorded after due verification by the officer. O...
Special Steels Ltd. Vs. Jay Prestressed Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas277(Bom)
H. Suresh J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the defendant-company for stay of the above suit on the ground that an enquiry is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') under Case No. 223 of 1988. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the defendants, has mainly relied on section 22, sub-section (1) of the said Act, in support of this application.2. The relevant portion of section 22 of the said Act is as follows:'22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. - (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Batliboi and Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR289(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The reference before us relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and raised the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,052 written back in the assessee's books, as being no longer payable to the depositors, is liable to be included in the assessee's total income ?'2. The assessee has not appeared though served and has intimated to the Revenue that it does not desire to appear and contest. This would appear to be because the issue to be decided in the question that is referred is covered by the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case pertaining to the assessment year 1969-70 viz., CIT v. Batliboi and Co. (P) Ltd. : [1984]149ITR604(Bom) . Following that judgment, the question before us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR692; (1989)75CTR(Bom)67; [1989]177ITR128(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The following questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the Department under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:'For the assessment year 1968-69:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction for expenditure of Rs. 8,400 being the rent of the guest house, under section 30 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct the expenditure of Rs. 6,060 for the maintenance of the guest house under section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?For the assessment year 1969-70:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction for expenditure of Rs. 4,200 being the rent of the guest house, under section 30 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Doshi and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR371(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The reference, made at the instance of the Revenue, raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration ?'2. The question arises with reference to the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee is a firm of chartered accountants. Originally, the partners were one J. K. Doshi and his daughter. Anjani (now referred as 'the senior partners'). By a deed of partnership dated October 12, 1967, on K. H. Doshi and Charulata, till then employees, joined the senior partners (and are now referred to as 'the junior partners'). Clause 14 of the deed of partnership dealt with the division of net profits appearing in the yearly accounts and, subject to annual increments and such bonus as was agreed upon, stated that K. H. Doshi would receive Rs. 12,000 per year and Charulata would receive Rs. 5,100 per year.3. By reason of the provisions of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1990]182ITR340(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The only question to be considered in this reference reads thus.'Whether, on the facts an d in the circumstances of the case, the interest income of Rs. 4,312 on the above shares would be includible in the total income of the assessee-settler on the ground that such income had arisen from assets transferred by the assessee otherwise than for adequate consideration '2. Counsel are agreed that the issue is covered by the judgment of this court in the assessee's own case in K. M. Sheth v. CIT : [1977]107ITR45(Bom) , and that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vulcan Laval Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR453(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The reference raises four questions at the instance of the Revenue and two question at the instance of the assessee. The questions read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cash allowance paid to the employees could be considered as outside the purview of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cash allowances paid to the employees could be considered as outside the purview of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71? (3) Whether, for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to building on the cost of roads either as part of factory buildings or building by themselves at 2 1/2%? (4) Whether, for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the as...
M.V. Sonavala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)74; [1989]177ITR246(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The questions of law referred to us for opinion in this reference are:'1967-68 to 1970-71 assessments years:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annual value of the property in the Commerce Center, Bombay, could be taken at Rs. 41,328 for 1967-68 and 1968-69, at Rs. 41,638 for 1969-70 and at Rs. 38,073 for 1970-71 assessment being the actual compensation received from Pfizer Pvt. Ltd., as against the municipal ratable value of Rs. 13,955, Rs. 21,170, Rs. 23,470 and Rs. 23,470 for the respective assessment years ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annual value of the property at Prabhu Kutir, Bombay, could be taken at Rs. 1,500 per month as against the lower municipal annual ratable value of Rs. 4,011 for the first year and Rs. 8,811 for the subsequent years ?1968-69 and 169-70 assessment years:3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annual value of the property in Sewree, Bombay, could ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »