Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD492(Mum.)
1. The assessee is an individual. The appeals are all filed by the department and the cross-objections by the assessee. While several issues relating to valuation and also the nature of some properties being agricultural were raised before the WTO and subsequently before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the departmental appeals, the only issue ultimately before the Tribunal relates to the valuation of several immovable properties and also the value adopted in respect of compensation to be received for an item of immovable property acquired by the Government. Objection has been raised in the departmental appeals against the Commissioner accepting the assessee's claim that in respect of the Topiwala theatre, a business asset included in the net wealth, a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and odd representing assets lost to the assessee should be deducted from the net wealth or in the alternative, be deleted from the net wealth as non-existent assets. The assessee filed returns of net wealth for these yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Common Judgment: 1. Writ Petition No.722 of 2013 filed by the original defendant No.1 takes exception to the order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing Exhibit 68 the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.590 of 2011, after conclusion of the cross-examination of one witness, viz. Mahendra Maniklal Shah, examined by the plaintiffs. 2. It was a suit for declaration that there is a concluded conditional contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 for transfer of right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. By way of amendment, which has been allowed by the Trial Court, a relief of specific performance of contract and for possession of the suit property, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)92TTJ(Mum.)360
1. This appeal by assessee for asst. yr. 1997-98; being in respect of order under Section 171 is directed against the order of. CIT(A), Mumbai, dt. 24th Sept., 2003, whereby the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal upholding the AO's order dt. 27th Dec, 2002, rejecting the assessee's application dt. 19th April, 2002, under Section 171 of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts, in brief, as ascertainable from the material on record, are that one Mohanlal Kishore Shah (Mohanlal K. Shah), Karta of Mohanlal K. Shah, HUF had acquired a plot No. 298, admeasuring 947 sq.yards on 12th Road, Khar, Mumbai-54, on lease from Government of Bombay on 20th Oct., 1926. He constructed a two storied building thereon; the total constructed area being 1/3rd of the total area of the plot and this position of the structure remained there till sale of the same by Harish B. Shah on 17th April, 1996, to M/s Narad Builders (P) Ltd. 2.1 Mohanlal K. Shah expired on 4th Oct., 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)8ITD57(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one each by the assessee and the ITO, relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is a non-resident company. It filed its returns of income for the first time for the assessment year 1971-72, inter alia, disclosing a loss of Rs. 7,272. The assessment was completed on 1-7-1975 determining the total income at Rs. 33,120. Return for the assessment year 1972-73 was filed on 10-2-1976 disclosing dividend income on 21,000 equity shares held by it in an Indian company by the name Albright Morarji & Pandit Ltd. During the course of proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO came to learn that the assessee-company has sold its technical know-how relating to its designs, drawings, specifications, etc., and also certain patents to the Indian company under an agreement dated 10-2-1966 and that in consideration thereof the Indian company had allotted 21,000 equity shares of Rs. 50 each out of its initial issue of shares to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 1st February, 1994 delivered by the learned II Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Solapur dismissing the application for probate filed by the appellants. The appellants and the respondents were the original applicants and the respondents respectively in the proceedings before the trial court except the legal heirs who were brought on record in this proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this appeal are as under : 2. Appellant nos. 2 to 4 are sons of the appellant no. 1 and one Mr. Anand Narayan Talwar. The probate proceedings were filed in respect of the alleged will of the testator Mrs. Leelabai Badrinarayan Talwar who was owner of various properties (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). The said deceased died issueless on 24th November, 1984. The husband of the said deceased died on 13th July, 1989. Mr. Jawaharlal Rajaram Talwar was father of the said deceased. The said deceased got var...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein are the original defendant nos. 2 to 6, while the respondent nos. 1 to 13 are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their original capacity. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 16/2013, against petitioners and others for permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of dispute is 16,168 square metres of land out of survey no. 60/2 (old matriz no. 786) of the property known as Um Terreno Oiteral Aforado situated at Sancoale. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the larger area bearing matriz no. 786 situated at Sancoale, Dabolim Village, Mormugao, was belonging to Shri Marcal alias Joao Paulo Mesquita, who died intestate leaving behind his moiety holder, Smt. Joaquina Mesquita (defendant no. 1). Marcal Mesquita sold 3,932 square metres of land to Shri Domingos Dia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)16ITD128(Mum.)
1. These two appeals pertain to the estate duty proceedings arising out of the death of Shri P.G. Mehta. There are number of grounds in these appeals but the point that was referred to the Special Bench reads as follows : Whether in the case of coparcenary interest in joint family property constitutes property passing on the death of coparcener, the interest of the lineal descendants of the deceased can be aggregated under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 to determine the rate of duty.The deceased was the karta of a HUF, which comprised of his three sons and his wife. Therefore, the Assistant Controller brought to tax one-fifth share of the deceased which would have been allotted to him if there had been partition before his death. He also included 3/5th share of his sons (i.e., lineal descendants) for rate purposes.3. The accountable person challenged this order before the Appellate Controller contending that the shares of the lineal descendants could not be aggregated f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1993-94 is directed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding certain additions and disallowances.2. The assessee is one of the biggest Indian companies in which public is interested. It is highly diversified and largest "core industries" in India. It produces viscose, staple fibre, rayon, pulp, caustic soda, cement, software, sponge iron, textiles, heavy engineering machinery and chemicals. It employs over 25,000 persons and its plants are located at about 10 places in India.3. In the memo of appeal, several grounds are raised, but during the course of hearing, the first objection taken by the learned counsel for the assessee related to disallowance of part of deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961 out of dividend income. The assessee during the relevant period received dividends from Indian companies and returns from UTI amounting to Rs. 28.64 crores and distributed dividend approximately Rs. 25.11 crores. In its return of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)565
2. The only effective ground of objection by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in holding that interest income amounting to Rs. 46,74,87,123 on advances given to Reliance Industries Ltd., Lavanya Holdings and Trading (P) Ltd. and Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. had not accrued to the assessee, though the AO had rejected the assessee's claim of non-accrual/receipt of interest from the above three companies.3. The case of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee-company itself had credited the interest income in its accounts, which are duly audited and subsequently, as an after thought, that the entries were reversed on 31st Oct., 1994, which was in the subsequent accounting year and the AO had rightly pierced the corporate veil and found that the assessee's claim of non-accrual of interest did not appear to be bona fide and correct. It is also the case of the Revenue that the CIT(A) ought to have ignored the agreement betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. These appeals arise from a common order dated 23 September 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Notice of Motion's taken out by the Appellants (Defendant nos.14 and 15 in the suit), under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint, qua the appellants for want of a cause of action. Respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. 2. To appreciate the case of the appellants it would be necessary to consider the plaintiff's/Respondent no.1's case as contained in the plaint. For the sake of convenience, in considering the plaint, we refer to the parties as arrayed in the plaint. Plaintiff's case in the plaint:- 3. The Plaintiff's suit is inter alia for the recovery of the amount aggregating to Rs.680,239,7,706.55 to be jointly and/or severally ordered and decreed to be paid by defendant nos.1 to 16 alongwith interest at 18% p.a. as per particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit 'U' to the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!