Mumbai Court November 1994 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. Fazalbhoy Ibrahim and Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)242; [1995]214ITR239(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business of fishing with the trawler was an industrial undertaking, eligible for deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The assessee-company carries on the business of catching, buying and selling fish. For the purpose of fishing, it used a trawler. In respect of this trawler, the assessee claimed relief under section V of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on the ground, inter alia, that the trawler used by it for the purpose of fishing was a 'ship'. The alternate ground was that the business of catching fish and selling them after processing amounts to manufacture or production of articles by an industrial undertaking. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hardelia Chemical Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)14; [1995]212ITR68(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Department, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was justified in passing the order under section 155(5) of the Act for the purpose of withdrawing the development rebate granted for the year 1969-70 ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1969-70. The material facts of the case are as under : The assessee owned a plant known as PAN plant the value of which was Rs. 1,81,54,060. This plant also comprised a PAN-reactor the value of which was Rs. 15,60,408. This PAN-reactor was destroyed by fire in the year 1973 relevant to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee received compensation for the loss from the United Fire and General Insurance Company. 3. In the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR1(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', Bombay ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, compensation paid to sole selling agents on the termination of the agency in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as amended on August 1, 1975, was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1977-78 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the case of a director who is also an employee of the assessee-company, the provisions of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable and not the provisions of section 40A(5) of the said Act ?' 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy in the second question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Y. Kolhatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)MhLj74
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of pension received by the assessee from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund after his retirement is exempt from tax, in view of the provisions of section 18(b) of article V of the Schedule to 'the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947' ?' 2. The controversy in this case is in a very narrow compass. The assessee was serving in the United Nations Organisation. During the year under consideration, he got pension from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. The amount of pension received by him during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 was Rs. 16,860 and Rs. 13,340, respectively. The assessee claimed exe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Bom)276; [1995]214ITR27(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner of Surtax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'D', Bombay ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following two questions of law to us for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital base has to be proportionately reduced in relation to the deduction allowed under Chapter VIA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the capital under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the total amount of donation should be taken as the basis for computing the' profits under rule (1) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, or whether only the maximum amount allowable under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be taken as the ba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moolsingh Karsondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR486(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has converted half of his share in the firm of Tulsidas Khimji into joint family property and consequently upholding the exclusion of 10 per cent. share in the firm from him assessment?' 2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Tulsidas Khimji (for short, 'the said firm') which was a registered firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee and his brother one Shantu are the sons of the late Shri Karsondas, who died on February 17, 1972, and was having 16 per cent. share in the said firm. After the death of the said Karsondas, a new partnership deed was executed on May 25, 1972, by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR15(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in declining to entertain additional evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal as per rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. She was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1978-79 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee declared 21 high denomination notes of Rs. 1,000 each totalling Rs. 21,000. It was contended by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that she withdrew the amount from her account with the Dena Bank from time to time and exchanged smaller notes into high denomination notes through her family friend, S...
Gammon India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Bom)184; [1995]214ITR50(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in admitting the additional ground of appeal filed by the junior authorised representative at the time of hearing challenging the very jurisdiction of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer himself who was the appellant before the Tribunal 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing the appeal of the Income-tax Officer on the preliminary ground urged in the additional ground taken by the Departmental representative at the time of hearing and in not deciding the appeal on the merits 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that there was no mistake apparent from record within the m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Boots Company (i.) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)85; [1995]214ITR175(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the computation of the capital for purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in terms of Rule 4 of the Second Schedule, an amount in proportion to the relief allowed to the assessee under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, in the corresponding assessment to income-tax had to be deducted in assessment to surtax for the assessment year 1977-78 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the surcharge though notlevied in the assessee's case was deductible while computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ?' 2. It is stated at the Bar that the controversy in...
Narcinva Camotim Alias Narsinha Krishna Kamat Vs. State of Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR5
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petition is taken for hearing only after we were assured by the learned Advocate General that the Government has no objection that the matter be heard by this Bench inspite of the fact that one of us (Silva, J.), is seen to have issued to the petitioner a Certificate at page 19 of the paper book being Exhibit P. 3 in the petition. 2. The petitioner is a retired Government employee. He challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the letter dated 25th May, 1987, from the under Secretary to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, Revenue Department. By the aforesaid communication the petitioner was informed that the representation addressed by him to the Government requesting for counting of his service rendered through the Communidade as 'Escrivao' for the purpose of fixing his pensionary benefits has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not an absorbed employee. The petitioner therefore seeks for a writ of certiorari or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »