Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]49ITR773(Cal)
G. K. MITTER J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee for determination of the question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Explanation 2 thereof as it stood at the material time ?'The facts of the case given in the statement of case and the order of the Tribunal are scanty. The Tribunal is, however, not to blame in any respect for the paucity of facts. The fault, if any, lies with the assessee who, in my opinion, might, without difficulty, have put more material before the income-tax authorities. The assessee came out to India as an assistant of a firm of tea brokers by the name of W. S. Cresswell & Co. in the year 1937. The firm had three partners by the name of N. D. Gye, W. N. Batty and N. F. F. Massy, the shareholdings being 8 as. 6 p., 7 as. and 6 p. respectively. The firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY,THE 5TH DAYOF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 224 of 2008 ( ) --------------------------- CC 37/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,PARAVOOR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3,4 & 5:: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SANDHYA.S.PILLAI, ANANDHABHAVAN, AYIROOR P.O.2. SAJEESH ANAND, ANANDHABHAVAN, AYIROOR P.O.3. SAJEEV ANAND, ANANDHABHAVAN, AYIROOR P.O. BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------ 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT , ERNAKULAM.2. SUKUMARAN.P.,PRASANTHI BHAVAN, PARIPPALLI.P.O., KOLLAM. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3. S.GIRIJA DEVI, W/O.LATE P.SUKUMARAN, PRASANTHI BHAVAN, PARIPPALLI.P.O., KOLLAM. ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.08.2008 IN CRL.M.A.NO.4138/2008 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA.M.T ADDL.R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.D.ASOKAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10426-10427 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22473-22474 of 2013) Leela Shashikant Purandare ....Appellant versus Arvind Vishnu Govande (dead) through L.Rs. ....Respondents JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 30.4.2013 of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal and the civil application filed by the appellant and upheld judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 passed by District Judge, Pune (for short, the lower appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No.325/2012 confirming judgment and decree dated 18.2.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pimpri (for short, the trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No.614/2000 filed by respondent - Arvind Vishnu Govande, who is now represented by his legal representatives, for declaration and possession of the suit property.3. After obtaining the degree of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these Appeals From Order arise from the same suit and are between the same parties and they have been argued together, and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Appeal From Order No.54/2012 challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit No.2/2012 dated 25 June 2012 in the application for interim relief filed by the appellant-original plaintiff. The Appeal From Order No.8/2015 is filed by the original defendants No.1 to 4 in the same suit challenging the order NH 6 AO Nos.54/2012 and 8/2015 dated 2 February 2015 dismissing the application filed by them under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for modification of the order dated 25 June 2012. 3. The parties to these appeals, Kunda Madhukar Shetye that is the original plaintiff, defendant No.1 Shaila Subrao Shetye, defendant No.2 Shriram Gajanan Shetye, defendant No.3 Pandurang Gajanan Shetye and defendant No.4 Vijay Gajanan Shetye, are relate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made on 23rd April, 2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Others v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) (303 ELP 161). This reference has arisen when the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) was considering four appeals (two by the partnership firm and two by its managing partner) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) from a common order dated 7th May 2012 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). All the four appeals raised the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal has erred in imposing simultaneous penalties on both partners and partnership firm? This reference arose as in the view of the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) there was a cleavage of opinion on the above issue between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In Texoplast Industries v/s. Additional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.30590/2014 (EXCISE) C/W WRIT PETITION No.56657/2014 (EXCISE) IN W.P. No.30590/2014 BETWEEN M/S. SHANKAR WINES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CL-2 LICENCEE NO.17, BANNERGHATTA ROAD WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE 560 023 REPRESENTED BY RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT32YEARS (BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND1 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE IN KARNATAKA2D FLOOR, BMTC SATELLITE BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560 027 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN ...PETITIONER DATE OF JUDGMENT :22/08/2017 in W.P. No.30590/2014 AND CONNECTED MATTER M/S.SHANKAR WINES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE AND ANR. 2 K.G.ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.M.SURESH REDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED0704.2014, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPEL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2005)BC136
1. Appellants are the defendants 4, 5 and 7 in the OA. Aggrieved by the Order dated 18.9.2003 in OA-364/1996 passed by the DRT, Bangalore, these defendants have preferred the appeal.The 1st respondent, which is the plaintiff filed the Suit before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in OS No. 3330/1989, for a decree against the defendants 1 to 7 for a sum of Rs. 15,27,605.58p. together with future and current interest @ 19.5% per annum towards Cash Credit Hypothecation loan and @ 15.5% p.a. towards the Term Loan from the date of the Suit till realisation and for costs.The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the 1st defendant Company. Defendants 2 and 3 had availed Cash Credit Hypothecation loan for the 1st defendant, to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs on 25.2.1983 and executed Demand Promissory Note dated 25.2.1983 and also executed letter of lien, set off and also continuing security letter. They have also executed a letter of partnership dated 25.2.1983, in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)4ITD475(Delhi)
1. Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,01,000 or Rs. 36,61,625 as the cost of the land on which the multi-storeyed building was constructed on the following grounds: b. The land having been brought in by Shri H.R. Vadhera as stock-in-trade or capital asset c. If brought in as a capital asset, then on its being converted into stock-in-trade 2. Whether there is any evidence of on-money being charged and if so, whether addition sustained by Judicial Member is justified Between the learned Members who heard the appeals originally, the points of difference were initially referred by the President to himself under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for hearing on the aforesaid points.2. At the time of hearing, however, the assessee's counsel as well as the senior departmental representative raised preliminary objections as to the formulation of the points of difference. The assessee's counsel also contended that the order of the learned Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1984)7ITD676(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal filed by Vishnu Industries of Karimnagar, objecting to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It had claimed depreciation on a godown allegedly taken over by the assessee-firm for its business purposes at Rs. 80,000. The ITO found that this godown devolved on the assessee on dissolu Jon of Laxmi Trading Co., as is evident from its dissolution deed. Though the assessee claimed that the premises was used for the assessee's business as is evident from sales tax and foods grains licences, the ITO was of the view that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation as it was not the owner of the godown inasmuch as the transfer from Laxmi Trading Co. to the assessee-firm was not evidenced by a registered instrument of transfer. The assessee explained that the property belonged to and was in the name of Shri Chandra Prakash Agarwal who had pooled it as his capital in Laxmi Trading Co. which used it as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune
Reported in : (1987)21ITD377(Pune.)
1. These appeals have been field by the revenue against the order of the AAC dated 11-1-1984 for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81.The only point in appeals is regarding the correctness of the decision of the AAC that the appellant-firm is entitled to get registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. On behalf of the revenue, Shri Shrinivasan explained the basic facts which are briefly summarised below. There is a Nihalani family at Nanded engaged in the business in the name of Nirose Lodge and Novelty Wine Mart. The latter had obtained a retail licence for sale of liquor.It was considered desirable to have a similar wholesale liquor licence.Accordingly, an application was made to the State Excise authorities.The exact date of application is not known but from one of the letters issued by the Under Secretary of the Home Department, State of Maharashtra, dated 14-7-1978 it appears that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Maharashtra State had ...
Tag this Judgment!