Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajkumar Dipchand Phade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR520(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The following question of law arises for determination in the above two appeals which are disposed of by this common judgment. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the assessment was framed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, even if the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' Facts: 2. During the period January 15, 1983, up to November 4, 1983, Deepchand Lalchand Phade Family Trust, was the proprietor of the business. On April 9, 1984, a partnership deed was executed with effect from November 5, 1983. Therefore, a partnership firm consisting of the trust and seven other partners came to be formed with effect from November 5, 1983. On May 15, 1984, the trust retired from the firm. On May 16, 1984, the firm got reconstituted between th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)337; [2001]249ITR756(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. On March 30, 2001, the appeal was dismissed with reasons to be recorded separately subsequently. We, accordingly, now, hereby give reasons for dismissing the appeal.2. Facts :A return of income was filed on January 24, 1983. It was a nil return. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on July 25, 1983. Under the said order, the Assessing Officer arrived at the total taxable income of Rs. 4,86,164. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal to the first appellate authority. The appeal was allowed vide order dated December 11, 1987. While giving effect to the order of the Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer granted to the assessee a refund of. Rs. 3,22,211 which included interest under Section 214 amounting to Rs. 90,402. This order was passed on October 24, 1988. At this stage, it may be noted that Section 214 of the Act was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with effect from April 1, 1985, and by virtue of the amen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cadbury India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)340; [2001]249ITR475(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of 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 right in law in holding that the depreciation allowance is an expenditure to be considered for weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Facts :For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee filed its return of income on July 13, 1979. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35C on the expenditure of Rs. 12,87,531 which amount included Rs. 34,305 which represented depreciation on certain assets. It was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that depreciation allowance is not an expenditure to be considered for weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Act. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who came to the conclusion following the decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wockhardt Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR118(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. On March 30, 2001, the appeal of the Department was allowed with reasons to be recorded separately subsequently. We, accordingly, now, hereby give reasons for allowing the appeal.2. The following question of law arises for determination under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in excluding 50 per cent of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the distribution of free samples in computing the disallowance under Section 37(3A) ?'3. Facts :During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of basic drugs and formulations. According to the assessee, the said drugs and formulations were ethical products and not consumer products. They were also known as prescription products as distinguished from, over-the-counter products. According to the assessee, samples were distributed to the doctors in order to test the efficacy of the produc...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR755(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for the payment of surtax is not an admissible deduction in the computation of the total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1976 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission payments made to a director are to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of computing the disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline...
Tag this Judgment!Baban Marotrao Thakre and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR884
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for life under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for 2 months each. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1993 are the appellants. They were tried for the aforesaid offence alongwith acquitted accused Sanjay Madhukar Gadge (accused No. 4). Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also implicated for the offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, accused Nos. 4 to 6 were acquitted of their offence by the trial Court.2. It is the case of the prosecution that there was an enmity between deceased Katheshwar and accused No. 6 Bhaskar Marotrao Thakre and accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the nearest relatives of accused No. 6. On 13-10-1992 Police Head Constable Wahane was on duty on S.T. Bus Stand Karanja at about 8 to 8.15 a.m. He heard the shouts from outside the main gate of the bus stand. He rushed towards the main gate and saw the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Harish Thakkar and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Appayya Shetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR689; 2001(4)BomCR250
A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for return of business of hotel known Parkway Restaurant along with premises bearing shop No. 11 & 12, Chhadva Apartments, Chembur, Bombay 400 074, wherein the business is being run by defendant and for damages. Plaintiffs' case in the plaint is as below. 2. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 carried on business in partnership in the name and style of Parkway Restaurant. The partnership firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act and the premises belong to the plaintiffs. Under an agreement dated 10-1-1977 entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant, defendant was allowed to conduct the business as licensee for a period of one year from February 1977 to 31st March, 1978 on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement.3. Defendant failed to pay to the plaintiffs monthly compensation as agreed under the said agreement and the same had fallen in arrears. Defendant only paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiffs by their letter dated 4-8-1977 inform...
Tag this Judgment!CanfIn Homes Ltd. Vs. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR901; 2001(4)BomCR84; [2001]106CompCas52(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. By a letter dated 24th February, 1992, the petitioner agreed to grant to the respondent-company in the present case. M/s. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd., a term loan of Rs. 5.52 crores for the purpose of enabling the respondent to construct dwelling units for its employees at Wardha. The respondent executed various documents in favor of the petitioner, including a Demand Promissory Note dated 21st August, 1992, promising to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 5.52 crores with interest at the rate of 22% per annum for value received. A loan agreement dated 17th August, 1992 and a supplementary loan agreement also of the same date were executed by the Company. On 27th August, 1992, the Chairman of the company and one of its Directors executed Guarantee Agreements by which they guaranteed the due repayment of the amount disbursed by the petitioner.2. A letter dated 24th February, 1992 issued by the petitioner sanctioning the term loan, inter alia, stipulated that t...
Tag this Judgment!Arni Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Limited Vs. Maharashtra State C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR558; 2001(4)BomCR542
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Kothari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Bhangade, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 20-12-2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal below Exhs. 58 and 61 in Special Darkhast No. 34/1988 whereby the Executing Court has rejected Exh. 58 and allowed Exh. 61. The facts which give rise to the controversy, in nutshell, are as follows.3. The respondent No. 1 decree holder filed execution proceedings against the present applicant/judgment debtor for recovery of Rs. 2,48,377.96, which were registered as Special Darkhast No. 34/1988. The decree holder during the pendency of the execution proceedings applied for attachment and sale of plot admeasuring 60' x 100' (6000 sq.ft.) along with the building situated at Arni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal. The Exec...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)434
S.H. Kapadia, J.The following three questions have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for our opinion.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for the payment of surtax is not an admissible deduction in the computation of the total income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1976 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that commission payments made to a director are to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline & French (India) Ltd. & Ors. v....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »