Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1998)64ITD396(Pune.)
1. This appeal is directed against the block assessment order dated 31-7-1996 passed by Shri D. B. Goel, Dy. CIT Special Range-4, Pune. The block period consists of previous years 1985-86 to 1994-95 and period from 1-4-1995 to 12-7-1995 relevant to assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97.2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of food products such as Gram dal, besan, atta, rava, maida, oil and oil cake, etc. It has the following units for manufacturing the above items : 3. Search and seizure action was taken under section 132 against the assessee on 12-7-1995 at the aforesaid manufacturing units as well as at its Offices at Market Yard, Gultekadi, Pune and also at Ashok Chambers, Mumbai. Similar action was also taken at the premises of its sister concern M/s. Parakh Food International (hereinafter referred to as 'PFI') a partnership firm constituted by S/Shri Harakchand K.Parakh, Prakash Parakh and Suresh H. Parakh, who, inter alia, are also the Directors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna
Reported in : (1998)65ITD24(Pat.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in respect of assessment year 1992-93. The assessee derives income from letting out godown and premises. It filed return in the status of a firm claiming that it carried on business. Up to the assessment year 1991-92 it carried on business in iron goods. It also claimed the rental income as business income. For the assessment year 1992-93, covered under the present appeal, also it claimed in the return that it carried on business of servicing. The income from godowns and premises was claimed to be comprised of rent plus service charges. The service charges were claimed as business income. The total receipts from service charges during the year were Rs. 23,976 and the total expenses incurred for the same were Rs. 18,656. The balance shown was as income from business.Besides, staff salary of Rs. 18,156 was combined for collection as well as service work.2. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not accept the claim. He held that the receipts from the servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7916 OF2009M/s Umesh Goel Appellant VERSUS Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.An interesting but very important legal question arises for consideration in this appeal relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act with reference to its applicability to Arbitral proceedings. The facts are not in controversy which can be briefly stated as under: The respondent which is a Cooperative Group Housing Society invited tenders for construction of 102 dwelling units with basement at Plot No.21 Sector 5, Dwarka New Delhi. The tenders were invited in May 1998. The appellant, an unregistered partnership firm submitted its bid in response to the said tender on 06.05.1998. The appellant was the successful bidder and the contract was awarded to the appellant at an estimated cost of Rs.9.80 crores. The appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)89ITD125(Kol.)
depreciation allowed set off by assessing officer on incorrect assumption of facts as well as on incorrect application of law The assessing officer has allowed the claim of assessee to set off the unabsorbed depreciation in question on incorrect assumption of facts as well as on incorrect application of law, therefore, as the view taken by the assessing officer is found neither permissible in law nor sustainable in law, the assessing officer's order can be very well treated as an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.The assessing officer has allowed the claim of assessee to set off the unabsorbed depreciation in question on incorrect assumption of facts as well as on incorrect application of law, therefore, as the view taken by the assessing officer is found neither permissible in law nor sustainable in law, the assessing officer's order can be very well treated as an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.The view adopted by the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.1919 of 2017 G.A.No.1705 of 2017 G.A.2282 of 2017 C.S.No.113 of 2017 SESA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED versus AVANI PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.AND RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD.For the Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ajay Krishna Chatterjee, Sr.Adv., Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Sr.Adv., Mr.V.N.Dwivedi, Adv., Mr.Argha Jena, Adv., Ms.Jayanti Char, Adv.For the Defendant No.2 : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the Respondents : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Adv., Mr.Anirban Kr. Ray, Adv.For Reliance Commercial Finance : Mr.Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr.Adv., Mr.Ravi Kapur, Adv., Mr.A.Kanodia, Adv.Hearing Concluded On : 17.08.2017 Judgment On : 5th September, 2017 Soumen Sen, J:- S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Adv., Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv., Vikas Tewary, Adv.Sanket Saraogi, Adv.The three applications filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 and Reliance Commercial Finance LTD.are disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1998Bom153; 1998(1)ALLMR579; 1998(4)BomCR75; (1998)2BOMLR82
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,83,480/- as per the particulars of claim Ex. 1 to the plaint; with further interest @ 24% p.a. from the defendant No. 1. An injunction is also sought against the defendants No. 1 and 2 restraining them from collecting rent payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant No, 3. A permanent injunction is sought restraining the defendant No. 3 from paying the rent payable by them to the plaintiffs in their respective share of 97% to the defendants No. 1 and 2.2. The Notice of Motion No. 2112 of 1995 was taken out by the plaintiffs for interim injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from collecting the rent payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant No. 3. An order of injunction was also sought against the defendant No. 3 restraining him from paying the rent by them to the plaintiffs in respect of the share of the plaintiffs. This Notice of Motion came up for hearing on 3rd August, 1995. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)98BOMLR837
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenge the concurrent orders passed by the Collector, Chandrapur and the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of State Excise. By the instant orders firstly the Collector allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 and deleted the names of the present petitioners from the licence and ordered the renewal of the said licence in the name of the respondent No. 3 alone. This order was confirmed in an appeal necessitating the present petition.2. Following facts will highlight the controversy:Respondent No. 3 Chaitram Domaji Mashakhatri was granted licence under Form C.L. III for running a retail country liquor shop under the provisions of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules 1973. He probably found himself unable to fulfil the conditions and, therefore, later on his licence came to be cancelled. This non grant of licence was informed to him by letter dated 28.3.1974. The respondent No. 3 did not do anything for a cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant318; AIR1971Mys318; (1971)2MysLJ68
Govinda Bhat, J. 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Mysore (Commissioner of Stamps), Bangalore has referred this case under Section 54 (1) of the Mysore Stamp Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'Act' for determination of the duty, if any, with which the Instrument to be executed by Mrs. Elizabeth Appollinaris Rebello and nine others, (hereinafter called the 'declarants') is chargeable. 2. The draft of the instrument was presented before the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Chickmagalur, for adjudication under Section 31 (1) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the Instrument is a 'conveyance, of right in properties of the value of Rupees 22,75,000/- not otherwise specifically provided for by the Schedule and as such chargeable with a Stamp Duty of Rupees 1,02,375/- under Article 20 of the Schedule to the Act. In the appeal preferred against the said order, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority took a contrary view that the Instrument is not a deed of 'c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995AP49; 1994(2)ALT375
ORDER1. This revision arises out of an order of the learned Additional District Judge in I.A. No-270 of 1987 in O.S. No. 126 of 1976.2. The petitioner is the third defendant in the suit.3. The facts in brief are as follows:--One Sri Pamuru Rama Subba Redtly filed the suit O.S. No. 126 of 1976 for dissolution and accounting of the partnership assets of the firm Vijaya Mahal threatre constituted on 1-4-1962. The defence in the suit was that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant retired from the partnership in the, year 1971 and therefore the plaintiff is not' entitled to seek the dissolution of the partnership and for settlement of the accounts of the partnership. The suit was decreed by the trial Court dissolving the said firm and also directed to take accounts. On appeal in A.S. No. 481 of 1979, the High Court by judgment dated 24-11-1983 affirmed the findings of the trial Court that no consideration was paid to the plaintiff towards his share in the assets of the said firm and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP34; [1968]68ITR107(AP)
1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1922. The question referred for decision is in the following terms:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the firm of Ramakrishna Transports, Kalabasthi was entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Act.'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1950-60, the relevant accounting year being the year ending on 31-3-1959 3. The assessee is a partnership firm constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 27-3-1955. It carries on business in bus transport. Two of the partners in this firm (1) Sri Venugopala Reddy and (2) Rama-krishna Reddy, holding 3 annas share each are the co-parceners of a Hindu undivided family, the Kartha being Sri A. Balarama Reddy. The only other two partners Sri Venku Reddy and Sri M. Veerabhadravya holding 5 annas share each are strangers The firm was duly registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act. The share income of Sri Venugopala Reddy and Ramkrishn...
Tag this Judgment!