Mumbai Court March 1993 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Voltas Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR569(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. Since, inter alia, a common issue is involved in these references, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessees are companies to which the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Surtax Act'), are applicable. The assessment years in the case of Messrs Voltas Ltd. are 1974-75 and 1975-76 while, in the case of Messrs Standard Mills Co. Ltd., it is 1975-76. 3. The questions referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'), read with section 18 of the Surtax Act at the instance of the Revenue in the case of Messrs Voltas Ltd., are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, could not be invoked for the purpose of reducing the capital base proportionately having regard to the deductions the assessee-...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)268; [1994]206ITR13(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 36,259 in the assessment year 1971-72, and Rs. 13,879 in the assessment year 1972-73, though permissible as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is an admissible item of expenditure being in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the agreement dated June 2, 1970, the expenditure of Rs. 1,15,067 is a capital expenditure ?' 2. The first question relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and 1972-73 and the second question relates only to the assessment year 1972-73. 3. So far as the first question is concerned, it is stated by learned counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Bom)1; [1994]206ITR23(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both at the instance of the assessee as well as the Revenue. The questions referred by the Tribunal pertain to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. Six questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee and four questions at the instance of the Revenue. All these questions are set out below : At the instance of the assessee : Assessment year 1972-73 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant's liability for the payment of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is not deductible in computing the income of the applicant under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' Assessment year 1973-74 : '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the legal expenses incurred in connection with the amalgam...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Paints Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1993LC65(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT241(Bom)
Kapadia, J.1. This Writ Petition seeks to challenge, inter alia, the Order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise bearing No. V(68) 18- 154/80/1993 dated 19th March, 1984, as also the Order No. C. EX. 6/WP/59/91/PL/1441 dated 19th March, 1984, by which the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division - I, Thane, rejected eight refund claims amounting to Rs. 90,17,762.05 for the period from 1st July, 1977 to 10th February, 1981 as also the refund claims for the period 16th February, 1981 to 30th June, 1993, amounting to Rs. 44,700.48, respectively. 2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows : (a) The petitioners manufacture paints, enamels and varnishes falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 14. The petitioners also manufacture thinners falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68. The total gross turnover of the petitioners for 1977-78, 1978-1979 and 1979-80 has been Rs. 1,181 lacs, Rs. 1,570 lacs and Rs. 1,970.46 lacs, respectively. ...
Tag this Judgment!Yadao Mahadeo Munne and ors. Vs. Zibal S/O Tukaramji Irkhade, (Decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR92
B.V. Chavan, J.1. Parties by counsel. Rules returnable forthwith.2. A short point that arises in this revision application is : Whether in a suit where some of the heirs of the deceased defendant are already brought on record and the plaintiff makes an application for bringing the remaining heirs and legal representatives on record, whether the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. and Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act could apply to such application or whether such application would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act.3. One Zibalrao, original plaintiff filed original suit against Mahadeorao, defendant No. 1 and his sons defendants 2 to 5 for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant had no right, title or interest in the said property and for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.4. During the pendency of this suit, defen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Voltas Ltd. (i.T.R. No. 177 of 1980).
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: (1993)122CTR(Bom)201; [1993]205ITR569(Bom)
U. T. SHAH J. - Since, inter alia, a common issue is involved in these references, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment for the sake of convenience.The assessees are companies to which the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Surtax Act'), are applicable. The assessment years in the case of Messrs Voltas Ltd. are 1974-75 and 1975-76 while, in the case of Messrs Standard Mills Co. Ltd., it is 1975-76.The questions referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'), read with section 18 of the Surtax Act at the instance of the Revenue in the case of Messrs Voltas Ltd., are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, could not be invoked for the purpose of reducing the capital base proportionately having regard to the deductions the assessee-company h...
Tag this Judgment!Master Devesh Darshan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD657(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, against the order of the DCIT(Appeals), for the assessment year 1989-90.2. An important issue is involved in this appeal, namely, whether the Income-tax Officer can rectify the Intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts are that in the "Adjustment Explanatory sheet", the assessee was intimated, inter alia amongst others, an adjustment in computing the income under the head "Capital Gains". The assessee sold certain shares at a profit and others at a loss. The gain was of Rs. 3,18,074 on the sale of shares of Vindhya Telelinks, Hind Aluminium, TISCO, Kirloskar Commines, G.E. Shipping etc. The loss was of Rs. 99,959 and on the sale of the shares of Mather & Platt, Hind D'oliver, Tata Unisys, etc. the net gain was thus of Rs. 2,18,115 (Rs. 3,18,074 - Rs. 99,959). These figures underwent a change because the gain on certain shares like S.E.E. Ltd. rind Bajaj Auto of Rs. 31,600 was considered by the ITO to be short-te...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reunion Engineering Co. (P) Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Bom)195; [1993]203ITR274(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal has referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act on such plant and machinery as claimed by the assessee-company ?' 2. The assessee is a company which carries on the business as electrical installation contractors and manufacturers of electrical products. In its assessment for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee claimed initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), on the ground that it was an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(9)(c) of the relevant finance Act and a small scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation (3) to section 32(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Shiorani W/O Shriram Jaiswal by L.Rs. Prakash Shriram and ors. Vs. Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR649
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. In these three writ petitions the acquisition of lands under the provisions of section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('Act' for short) is under challenge. Though the challenge is on various grounds, the common challenge in all of them is based on the interpretation of the above section.2. When the writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended, relying upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sant Joginder Singh Kishinsingh v. State of Maharashtra, : (1989)91BOMLR807 , that as the declarations in question for acquisition in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 126 were made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the draft development plans, they were clearly illegal in view of the proviso to the said sub-section and therefore liable to be quashed. Though the above judgment fully supported the contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Industitute of Social Sciences Vs. Krishna Kamal Builders and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR47; (1993)95BOMLR183
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seek to set aside the award dated 29th March 1990 made by the Jamshed Burjor Aga the sole arbitrator which has been filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 40 of 1992. The petition is finally heard at the stage of its admission.2. The petitioners had entrusted the work of construction of a guest- house, extension of additional teaching block and extension of teachers' quarters at Deonar, Bombay 400088 ( for short 'the said Work') on the terms and condition mentioned in the articles of agreement executed at Bombay on 25th September, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the said Contract'). It was inter alia agreed by and between the petitioners and the respondents at the time of entering into the said Contract that the General Conditions of Contract annexed to the said articles of agreement would form apart of the said Contract and as such would be binding on the petitioner and the respondents. The time limit specified for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »