Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)338; [1986]160ITR650(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The question referred to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy and charge under the Industrial Tax Rules, 1927, which had the force of law in the erstwhile Holkar State of Indore amounted to income-tax or super-tax or tax on profits of business ?'2. The facts : Hukumchand Mills Ltd., the assessee, is a company incorporated in the year 1915 under the Companies Act in force in the then Holkar State of Indore (referred to hereinafter as 'the Holkar State') as a public limited company having its registered office at Indore. The principal object of the company was the manufacture and sale of cloth. The assessee owns a textile mill at Indore. Up to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1949-50, the assessee was being assessed in British India as a non-resident, except in 1948-49 when it was assessed as a resident. The assessee became liable to be a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR333
Fazal Ali, J.1. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the provisions of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (Punj. Act No. XVII of 1940), which will hereinafter be referred to as the Punjab Act, are beyond the powers of the Provincial Legislature which enacted it. The question arose under the following circumstances.2. The appellant is the owner of a shop in the town of Amritsar. Under the Act, to which reference has been made, he was called upon to pay, a sum of Rs. 67-8-0 as property tax for the year 1943-44 in respect of the shop. At first, he denied his liability to pay the amount, but, subsequently, he paid it under protest, and thereafter instituted a suit in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Amritsar, claiming its refund on the ground that the Act which levied the property tax was ultra vires the Punjab Legislature. This suit was dismissed, and thereupon, he made an application for revision to the Lahore High Court, but the application also was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]116ITR528(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference the following question of law has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Surtax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur, for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount in proportion to the relief allowed to the assessee under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act in the corresponding assessment to income-tax had to be deducted in determining the capital of the assessee-company as at July 1, 1969, for the purpose of assessment to surtax for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee before us is Ballarpur Industries Ltd., previously known as Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd., Ballarpur. We are concerned with their liability to surtax for the assessment year 1971-72. The chargeable period for the said assessment was the year ended 30th June, 1970, and the capital for the purpose of determining the standard deduction was thus required to be determined as on 1st July, 1969. The assessee had ini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1982]134ITR256(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. In this matter the following three questions are referred to us for our determination: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of any portion of the goodwill of the firm in which the deceased was a partner could be included in the dutiable estate either under section 5 or under section 7 of the Estate Duty Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 5,785 lying to the credit of the wife of the deceased in the books of the firm in which the deceased was a partner, could be included in the property deemed to pass on his death under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 26,312 representing a portion of the penalty levied under the Income-tax Act, on the firm, of which the deceased was a partner, could be deducted in determining the value of the property passing on the death of the deceased ?' 2. Out of these question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(Bom)163; [1992]194ITR167(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated abroad. It carries on the business of banking. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, it received interest amounting to Rs. 15,92,135 from various Indian concerns on the loans advanced to them by the assessee. From the interest so received, the assessee deducted a sum of Rs. 13,16,161 consisting of proportionate interest paid on the funds borrowed by the assessee which were used for advancing loans to the Indian concerns, and the proportionate expenditure on earning interest from the Indian concerns. After deducting the total amount of Rs. 13,16,161 from Rs. 15,92,135 it included the balance of Rs. 2,75,974 as income from interest in its total income in the income-tax return filed by it. This was accepted by the Income-tax Officer.2. For the said year, the assessee also received a sum of Rs. 2,77,717 as interest on taxable Government securities held by it. From this amount, the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(Bom)192; [1990]186ITR463(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an application under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The applicant making the reference is the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay. The accountable person is the Official Trustee, Maharashtra State, Bombay. The questions which are referred to us relate to the estate of the deceased, Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronet, who died on or about September 24, 1968. The questions relate to the interest which the deceased baronet had in the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund which was created initially under the Baronetcy Act 20 of 1860, which Act was subsequently replaced by Act 10 of 1915. Under these Acts, certain promissory notes of the Government of India producing an annual income of Rs. 1 lakh and a Mansion House and hereditaments called Mazegaon Castle were settled in perpetuity to support the title and dignity of a baronet under the said Act. Under the said Act, the income from these properties and the use of the same was conferred on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ARBLR204(Bom); 2002(6)BomCR50
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present Summary Suit on the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') dated 20-2-1996 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were interested to procure public subscription for 46,60,000 equity shares. The defendants accordingly approached the plaintiffs to procure the said subscription. The plaintiffs accepted the said arrangement. The said arrangement was the subject-matter of the 'MOU'. Relevant clauses of the MOU for the purpose of answering the issues in controversy are 3(d) 4, 5 and 6, which read as under :--'3(d) Fees of 17.50 per cent (amounting to Rs. 89,70,500 only) would be paid to the second party by the first party and the said amount shall be payable by Post-dated cheque payable in Bombay. Out of the above-mentioned amount of Rs. 89,70,500. Rs. 4,48,525 shall be payable at the time of signing this agreement and Rs. 22,42,625 shall be payable on the closure of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR207; 2002LC798(Bombay); 2003(151)ELT23(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Both petitions filed by M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited were heard together and with the conclusion of the submissions, Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993 was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, we record our reasons based on facts enumerated hereinafter.2. Both these petitions were heard together since the cause of action in both these petitions originate from the amount already refunded by the Respondents to the Petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 3679 of 1989, the Petitioners challenge the action of the Respondents in claiming excise duty by redetermining the assessable value by including the amount of refund already granted, as price realisation under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('Excise Act' for short). In Writ Petition No. 199 of 1993, the Petitioners challenge the show cause notice dated 2-9-1992 issued under Section 11A/11D of the Excise Act, as amended in 1991 to reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)214CTR(Bom)316; [2008]304ITR401(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the rent paid by ultimate user will be treated as Annual Letting Value of the property as against rent received by the assessee?B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the annual letting value has to be determined with reference to the annual rent received by the assessee and not what has been received by its tenants from the ultimate users?C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 19,74,489 are not to be taken into account while computing the profits liable to be taxed under Section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961 and that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. : [2001...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!