Mumbai Court February 1991 Judgments
Estate of Late Mr. N.M. Sethna Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD42(Mum.)
1. The grievance of the assessee in this case is that CIT (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the order of the ITO wherein he had computed the short-term capital gain at Rs. 8,231 on the sale of rights received from M/s. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. in his capacity as a shareholder.2. It is necessary to set out the facts in brief. The assessee, along with another, was owner of 85,425 shares in Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. On 19-3-1981, this company made a declaration of dividends of 47 cents per share. The company simultaneously issued bonus shares in the ratio of one bonus share for every 4 shares held. The assessee thus became entitled to receive 21,356 bonus shares. The company also issued right shares in the ratio of 3 right shares for every 20 shares.The right shares were issued at a premium of HK $ 9.50. Together with the face value of the share, each right share would have cost the assessee $12 per share. The rights received in all were 1...
Tag this Judgment!Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR311(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. In this reference by the assessee relating to its assessment for the assessment year 1963-64, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That question is : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in valuing the sugarcane purchased by the applicants at its agricultural farms and crushed at its Sakarwadi and Laxmiwadi at Rs. 53.10 per tonne and Rs. 52.20 per tonne instead of Rs. 54.10 per tonne and Rs. 53.20 per tonne, respectively, claimed by the applicants ?' 2. The assessee had thereafter taken out a notice of motion, being No. 155 of 1977 dated February 27, 1977. By order dated March 3, 1982, the notice of motion was made absolute as regards questions Nos. 2,3 and 6 only in terms of prayer clause (c). This resulted in the reference of the following three further questions of law. However, the Tribunal was not directed to drawn up a sup...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Bhaichand Ravani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT337(Bom)
ORDERPendse, J. 1. By this motion, the petitioner requests that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be committed to civil jail and fine be imposed for wilfully disobeying the order dated July 23, 1990 passed by one of us (Pendse, J.). To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few facts. 2. On July 23, 1990, Write Petition No. 2101 of 1990 was disposed of and the relevant portion of the order reads as under : 'The Respondents are hereby directed to refund to the Petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,90,541.92 being the excess basic customs duty recovered from the Petitioners in the matter, within 6 weeks from the submission of relevant documents to the Respondents. The Petitioner will record to the Respondents the date on which he submits the relevant documents to the Respondents. If the said amount is refunded to the Petitioner within the period of 6 weeks as aforesaid, the Petitioner will not insist on recovery of any interest on the said amount. If the amount is not ref...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Frenkel and Partners Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD364(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a non-resident - Firm outside India - appeals for the assessment year 1984-85, for which the accounting period is claimed to have ended with 30th June, 1983. A return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 12,49,286 was filed by the assessee on 11th April, 1985 but the assessment stood completed on 17-2-1986 on a total income of Rs. 19,97,080. The Assessing Officer, after detailing the facts of the case and the agreement alleged to be consultancy agreement dated 5-5-1982 by the assessee on the one part and the Government of Maharashtra of the second part through Steering Group for Bombay Mainland Link Project, held that the source of activity of the assessee-company was in India.The agreement was made in India and, accordingly, income has accrued/arisen to the assessee-company in India. The receipt was held to be in the nature of fees for technical services. It was assessed as such and advance payments/monthly payments treated as consideration paid during the period releva...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR327(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There is only one question in this reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1971-72. The question on reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the roads inside the factory premises constitute 'plant' and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on such roads ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court's decision in the case of CIT v. Sandvik Asia Ltd. : [1983]144ITR585(Bom) , the question is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. However, the assessee will be entitled to depreciation on these roads as 'building'. The question is so answered. 3. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lullabhai Hirabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR427(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that due to disclosure made by the assessee in part IV of the return, the assessee could not be said to have finished inaccurate particulars of income with the the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and consequently, levy of penalty under the said section was not justified (2) Whether the disclosure of the prize money receipts in Part IV of the return of income could be considered as true and full disclosure within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that except for the falsity of the explanation of the assessee, it was not established by positive evidence by the Revenue that the impugned amount was income earned by the assessee during the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR169(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There is only one question in this reference. That question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash payments made by the assessee to its directors such as house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, furniture allowance, etc., should not be considered as 'perquisites' within the meaning of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) , the question should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. The proceedings relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The question is so answered....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.K. Zanjale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR223(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal pH was right in law in holding that the rental compensation in respect of the land of the assessee requisitioned by Government calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,995 per year commencing from August 7, 1961, to March 31, 1970, be assessed as income during the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1970-71 ?' 2. The short facts leading to the making of this reference are as under : (a) The relevant assessment year is 1968-69. (b) The assessee was the owner of certain land. On August 17, 1961, the said land was requisitioned by the Collector of Pune under the Bombay Land Requisition Act for rehabilitation of flood victims. Under section 8 of the said Act, the assessee became entitled to receive compensation from the authorities in lieu of rental. The ri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.N. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR153(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the amount received by the assessee on sale of goodwill is not liable to capital gains tax ?' 2. The short facts leading to the making of this reference are as under : (a) The assessment year involved is 1968-69. (b) The assessee was the proprietor of a business in the name and style of Kishore Industries. On January 1, 1967, the assessee sold the business to a limited company named Kishore Pumps (P.) Ltd., of which he became the managing director. Under the agreement of sale dated April 11, 1967, the aggregate consideration of Rs. 1,05,650 was spilt up and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was described by the parties as a consideration for sale of goodwill. The Income-tax Officer he...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR773(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee, an insurance company, assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(i) Whether the general reserves and taxation reserves are allowable expenditure (ii) If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether such expenditure or allowance would categorically be governed by sections 30 to 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Whether the taxation reserve or general reserve is liable to be added back under rule 5 (a) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that similar questions were involved in the case of CIT v. South India Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1992]193ITR774(Bom) (Appex) and that, by our court's judgment dated December 12, 1988, in Income-tax Reference No. 236 of 1976, we have answered the first question thus : 'Neither the ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »