Mumbai Court September 1989 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. Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR31; [1990]185ITR6(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the Revenue, under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It raises, in regard to the assessment year 1967-68, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the average rate of income-tax should be worked out with reference to the total income of the company as reduced by the amount of capital gains, for the purpose of computing the relief admissible under section 85A on its inter-corporate dividend for the assessment year 1967-68 ?'2. The reference comes to be heard by a Bench of three judges because the Division Bench which had earlier heard it was of the view that the Division Bench judgment might require reconsideration.3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner having passed an order in regard to the income-tax assessment of the assessee-company for the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer had to give effect...
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR242(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the assessee and raises, inter alia, the following three questions :'(1) Whether the total exemption from income-tax granted to the profits of any co-operative society registered under the merged states law under clause 13(v) of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, issued under section 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has ceased to be available to the profits of the assessee-co-operative society for the relevant assessment year 1961-62 under the said Act ? (2) Whether the total exemption from income-tax granted to the profits of any co-operative society registered under the Merged State law under clause 13(v) of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, issued under section 60A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has ceased to the available to the profits of the assessee-co-operative society for the relevant assessment years 1962-63 to 1969-70 inasmuch as a provision in this regard within ...
Parisar an Organisation and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR79
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by and on behalf of five voluntary organizations of Pune and the two Secretaries of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner organizations appear to be interested inter alia in the protection and preservation of ecological balance and proper environment in and around Pune City. Through this petition they have challenged and prayed for quashing of Government Notification Nos. 1879/2966/UD/7 dated April 29,1981 and the Government order/direction/letter No. TPS/1886/916/CR/147/UD/7 dated October 5, 1987 mainly on the grounds, that the aforesaid notification and order/direction/letter :(i) were in violation of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short M.R.T.P. Act)(ii) were in violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ;(iii) were issued without following the procedure laid down in the two Acts ; and(iv) were the result of arbitrary exercise of powers vested in the Government in this beh...
Awadabai and Others Vs. Parvati and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom105; 1990(1)BomCR234
1. The first respondent, Parvati alias Drupadabai w/o Ramchandra Borate, (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed civil suit No. 15 of 1974 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi for partition of certain property and possession of her separate share together with mesne profits. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by an order dated November 29, 1978 on the ground that it was not tenable without payment of the costs of the previous suit No. 53 of 1972 which was withdrawn by the plaintiff conditionally. The matter was taken in appeal in the District Court at Satara by the plaintiff who filed Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1979 impugning the order dated November 29, 1978 passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned Assistant Judge, Satara, who heard the said appeal allowed it as he was of the opinion that the order passed by the Judge while allowing the withdrawal of the original suit was not properly interpreted by the Civil Judge, Junior D...
Maharashtra Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom201; 1989(3)BomCR223
ORDERSuresh, J.1. By a resolution dated August 19, 1985, the Government of Maharashtra took to policy decision that whenever tenders are called for procurement of Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipes by various Corporations/Councils and autonomous bodies sponsored by Government, orders be placed on units situated in Maharashtra to the extent of their manufacturing capacities. Further, while placing the orders, priority be given to small case industries to the extent of their manufacturing capacities and only thereafter the order be placed in medium and large scale units to the extent of their manufacturing capacities. However, as far as the standards and price are concerned, there could be no preference to small scale industries and they are to participate in the tender pari -- passu with others. This is further clarified by a subsequent resolution dated October 14, 1986, whereby the Government has directed that the Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipers and related components should be purchased f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR214(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. The question that we are called upon to answer at the behest of the Revenue in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J on the basis of inclusion in the capital employed, within the meaning of rule 19A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, of the amount of Rs. 7,00,111, being the average value of machinery in transit ?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1965-66, the relevant previous year having ended on December 31, 1964.3. In computing the capital of the assessee's Tyre Cord Unit for the purposes of section 80J of the Act, the Income-tax Officer deducted the amount of Rs. 7,00,111, being the average cost of machinery in transit. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held in the assessee's favour and directed the Income-tax Officer to grant to the assessee relief under section 80J even in regard to t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Flexicons Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR73(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 89,900 should be allowed to be capitalised and should be treated as part of the 'actual cost' of the factory building, plant and machinery and electric installation for the purpose of allowing depreciation and relief under section 84 to the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 and for allowing depreciation with reference to the written down value of the said capital expenditure for the subsequent assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 for which the previous years ended on June 30, in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, respectively.3. During the construction of a factory, the assessee had incurred expenditure aggregating to Rs. 89,900 which was capitalised and allocated thus :Rs.Factory building : 10,597Plant and machi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharamchand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR192(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The question of law referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department in this reference is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,66,048, as determined by the income-tax authorities, is liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee-firm under the first proviso to section 12B(2) ?'2. It is common ground that the assessee, a registered firm, converted itself into a private limited company under a sale deed dated July 11, 1960. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1961-62. Under the sale agreement, all the assessee's assets and liabilities including goodwill were transferred to the private limited company at book value. The goodwill did not appear as an asset in the assessee's books and no value was charged therefor from the limited company.3. However, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee had goodwill which was transferred to the limited company without consideration. Since the partners ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kodak Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR275(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The two questions which are raised read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act should be given on the advance tax refund ensuing from the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner instead of advance tax refund resulting from the original assessment order ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation should be allowed at 30% on motor vans instead of at 20% as provided in the Rules ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the answer to be given to the first question is concluded by the Full Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. : [1984]146ITR452(Bom) . Following that judgment, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.3. The second question relates to a motor van. It is the a...
New Great Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR40(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference raises two questions. The first question is at the instance of the assessee and the second is at the instance of the Revenue. The questions read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend reserve of Rs. 3,50,000 as on January 1, 1966, is includible as 'reserve' in the computation of capital of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1967-68 in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gratuity reserve of Rs. 4,00,000 as on January 1, 1966, is includible as 'reserve' in the computation of capital of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1967-68 in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vazir S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »