Mumbai Court September 1989 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Atlas Capco (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Bom)154; [1990]181ITR151(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. Two questions of law have been referred to this court by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department. The questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 14,46,000 being dividend recommended by the directors out of the general reserve after first day of the accounting year and declared and paid in the next year should not be excluded from the general reserve in computing the capital ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the general reserve should not be reduced by the sum of Rs. 28,24,000 being the value of bonus shares issued after the first day of the previous year, even though the capital had been increased proportionately in view of rule 3 of the Second Schedule ?'2. According to Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, the first question is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Inarco Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]181ITR385(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The two questions to be answered in this reference related to the assessment year 1972-73. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 14,40,000 being dividend for 1970 calendar year should not be excluded from the general reserve for the purpose of computing the capital base under the Surtax Act, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rule 4 under the Second schedule to the Surtax Act did not apply, since the deduction allowed under section 80-I formed part of the total income ?'2. The first question must be answered in the negative and favour of the Revenue, having regard to the judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) . The second question, it is agreed, is covered by the decision in CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) . The question is, accordingly, a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Motors (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]181ITR347(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the Revenue. The only question that is referred reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 76,680 was an allowable revenue deduction in the assessment of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1972-73 for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1971.3. The assessee is an agent for the sale of Tata motor vehicles. It also carries on business in repairing motor vehicles. The terms and conditions of service of workmen employed by the assessee were governed by awards. On October 7, 1970, the trade union representing the workmen of the assessee gave notice to the assessee terminating the awards with effect from two months thereafter. The assessee's board of directors noted this at a meeting held on November 25, 1970. A provision was made ...

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990LC131(Bombay); 1989(44)ELT630(Bom)

Mukerjee, C.J.1. The Petitioner Company carries on business as manufacturers of biscuits. It has a factory at Reay Road, Mazagaon, Bombay. The biscuits manufactured at the said factory were excisable goods and they were liable to ad valorem excise duty at the relevant time under the Tariff Item 1C of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. On 27th October 1980 the Petitioners moved the present Writ Petition, inter alia, challenging the varies of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which was substituted for the original Section 4 by Act 22 of 1973. They had also prayed for issue of appropriate writs against the Respondents for withdrawing and/or canceling the orders refusing their prayer for refund of the excess excise duty paid from 1-10-1975, for approving the price lists submitted by the Petitioner Company on 6th August 1980 and to all the Petitioner Company to clear its goods after payment of the excise duty on the basis of the assessable val...

20th Century Finance Corporation Limited and Another Vs. State of Maha ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. The 1st petitioners are a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and have their registered office at Bombay. They carry on the business of leasing diverse equipment. The 2nd petitioner is described as a shareholder of the 1st petitioners. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of the Right to use any Goods for any purpose Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the impugned Act") is ultra vires the Constitution of India and is null and void. They have also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to enforce or to act in furtherance of the said Act or to demand, levy or recover any tax from the 1st petitioners on the basis thereof. In paragraph 5 of their writ petition the petitioners have set out the manner in which the 1st petitioners carry on the said business of leasing goods for use. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioners as lessors enter into a...

Prabhulal Chhogalal Vs. Bastiram Himatram and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1990Bom367; 1990(1)BomCR529; (1989)91BOMLR886

ORDERDharmadhikari, J.1. Deceased Bastiram Himatram Bhutada, father of respondent No. 1-plaintiff-landlord filed a Civil Suit No. 2292 of 1974 in the Court of the III Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune for eviction of the petitioner-defendant-tenant from the suit premises. One of the grounds for eviction was that the tenant sublet the suit premises to one Phutarmal Sitaram Mandora. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the tenant did sub-let the suit premises to Phularmal and thereby contravened the provisions of section 13(l)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') and on that basis the decree for eviction came to be passed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the tenant preferred an Appeal No. 202 of 1979 before the IV Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, who confirmed the finding that the tenant had unauthorisedly sub...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Altra Laboratories (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]182ITR463(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha J.1. The question, raised at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that while computing the capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the capital of the company should not be reduced in proportion to the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A, viz., under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. Having regard to the judgment in CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) , this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. No order as to costs....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Bom)174; [1990]181ITR291(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. Five questions of laws are referred to this court by the Tribunal in this case. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 6,99,710 (assessment year 1967-68), Rs. 9,45,000 (assessment year 1970-71) and Rs. 10,50,000 (assessment year 1971-72) being the dividend recommended by the directors were to be included for the purposes of computation of capital for ascertaining the standard deduction for the respective assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and 1971-72 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 11,00,000 (assessment year 1967-68), Rs. 30,00,000 (assessment year 1970-71) and Rs. 15,50,000 (assessment year 1971-72) being the amounts borrowed by the assessee from the ICICI in an agreement to repay the same within a period of not less than seven years were to be included in the capital computation base for the respective assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and 1971-72, even though t...

Gulab Abdul Fakir Vs. Smt. Satyabhamabai G. Deshpande and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR790

Sujata Manohar, J.1. The present petitioner is the heir and legal representative of Gulab Abdul Fakir who was a tenant in respect of 1/3rd portion of Survey No. 351 admeasuring 1 acre and 29 gunthas situated at village Charam in Shirala Taluka of Sangli District. The 1st respondent is the owner of the said land.2. On 17th October, 1967 the 1st respondent obtained a certificate under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The certificate was received by her on 7th July, 1968. She made an application on 7th October, 1968 under section 33-B of the said Act for possession on the ground that the bona fide requires the said land for personal cultivation. The Tahsildar by his order dated 11th February, 1972 granted her application. The tenant preferred an appeal from this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the mean while, however, pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar the 1st respondent obtained possession of the portion of the said land which wa...

Kishore S/O Jumma Tudlat Vs. Brijlal S/O Shiolal Jaiswal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR214; (1989)91BOMLR918

D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal dismissing his suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of house property. Parties are both residents of Pusad, Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal. The house property in question belongs to the respondent. According to the plaintiff, he came to know that the defendant had put the said house property to sale, and therefore, made an offer to purchase the same. An Agreement of sale was accordingly made on 8-10-1984. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the house property for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- out of which he paid Rs. 30,000/- on the date of agreement of sale itself. The sale deed was to be executed on 7-10-1985 in time. The plaintiff, therefore, sent a notice dated 12-9-1985 to the defendant reminding him of the agreement of sale and accordingly calling upon him to remain present in the office of the said Registrar at Pusad on 7-10-1985. To this...