Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: mumbai Year: 1985 Page 1 of about 176 results (0.030 seconds)

Oct 24 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-24-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)158; [1986]162ITR622(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN444(Bom)

..... bharucha, j.1. four questions are put to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the first two at the instance of the revenue and the latter two at the instance of the assessee. they read thus :'(1) whether, on ..... each month. in mr. kolah's submission, the calculation should have been made on the state of the overdraft account from day to day. it was the income-tax officer who made the calculations on the basis of the state of the overdraft account at the end of each month of the relevant previous year. we find ..... having ended on september 30, 1967. the assessee had an overdraft bank account.it utilised the overdraft attributed to borrowings on overdraft utilised for payment of taxes was disallowed by the income-tax officer, by the appellate assistant commissioner and by the tribunal on the basis that it was not an allowable revenue expenditure. in so doing, reference was ..... the assessment year 1968-69 ?'2. counsel are agreed that the first question is covered by the unreported decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself (income-tax reference no. 26 of 1965 decided by kantawala c.j. and tulzapurkar j. on july 26, 1974). the answer to the first question must be, it is ..... rs. 18,05,000 on december 15,1969,which increase the overdraft to rs. 14,63,593 by december 31,1969 the income-tax officer disallowed the proportionate interest payable by the assessee to the bank. it was noted by the appellate assistant commissioner that the assessee's entire .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1985 (HC)

Lokenath Tolaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-31-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)237; [1986]161ITR82(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN486(Bom)

..... provisions of section 66(1) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.2. in the earlier reference, the questions raised are at the instance of the assessee. they read as follows :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement to the income made by the appellate assistant commissioner by the ..... in relation to the account of shivshankar and company in the assessee's books of account. in the submission of mr. jetly, learned counsel for the revenue, the income-tax officer had considered the income of the assessee from its yarn business. the transactions between the asses - see and shivshankar and company were in respect of the yarn business. when, therefore, the ..... be sustained.12. mr. dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before us that the appellate assistant commissioner could have gone into only those items as were considered by the income-tax officer from the point of view of their taxability and that it was not open to the appellate assistant commissioner to go outside the record of assessment which comprised the ..... made to them. the appellate assistant commissioner concluded by ordering that pending the receipt of the remand report 'this appeal will stand by'.7. in his remand report, the income-tax officer, on the basis of the evidence that he had gathered, concluded that ganesh trading company and mahavir trading company were brought into existence by the assessee itself to divert .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1985 (HC)

B.G. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-04-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)313; [1986]162ITR23(Bom)

..... bharucha, j.1 . this is a reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961. the question to be considered read thus :'(a) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of ..... said agreement.4. for the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed that the said amount of rs. 37,500 was exempt from income-tax, being a capital receipt. the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had wanted the said premises for business and that the compensation received for the breach in this ..... 37,500 received by the assessee as damages was not a revenue receipt.6. the revenue appealed to the income-tax appellate tribunal. reliance was placed on behalf of the revenue upon the statement made by the assessee in the said suit that he was carrying on business ..... ; and that the said compensation amount of rs. 37,500 was a capital receipt not susceptible to income-tax.8. reliance was placed by mr. khatri upon the judgment of this court in bombay burmah trading corporation ltd. v. cit : [1971]81itr777(bom) . this court observed that compensation received for loss of a capital asset ..... the said agreement having been entered into in the ordinary course of business, it could not be regarded as a capital asset. the compensation received was income liable to tax in the year in which it was received.5. the appellate assistant commissioner, on appeal by the assessee, held that the said amount of rs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1985 (HC)

Baijnath Brijmohan and Sons P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-04-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)266; [1986]161ITR234(Bom)

..... the department in a subsequent year. but this rule is subject to limitations, for there should be a finality and certainly in all litigations including litigation arising out of the income-tax act, and an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse, if it had been arrived at after due inquiry, if no ..... house property '. it has been pointed out by the division bench that the heads of income enumerated in section 14 of the income-tax act, 1961, are mutually exclusive and each specific head covers items of income arising from the specific source. income derived as rent from property must be computed under the specific head regardless of the fact that that property had at one time ..... of the supreme court in east india housing and land development trust ltd. v. cit : [1961]42itr49(sc) . in that case, the supreme court has taken a view that if the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in section 6 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not ..... make the income taxable under the latter head. on the question referred, we are not called upon .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mazda theatres Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-16-1985

Reported in : [1986]162ITR442(Bom)

..... charge this item which had escaped assessment before the finalisation of the settlement. in the circumstances, it was only open to the income-tax officer to issue a fresh notice under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961, to bring this item to charge.7. the question, then, is : were the reassessment proceedings concluded when the settlement ..... originally made on june 25, 1958, and august 16, 1961, respectively. on december 29, 1965, the income-tax officer issued to the assessee a notice under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961. the reasons noted by the income-tax officer for thus initiating reassessment proceedings were stated thus :'it is found that hundi borrowings of the assessee-company ..... assessment on the incorrect basis that it was a new building.5. some time thereafter, the income-tax officer made an order of reassessment under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the income-tax act, 1961. he stated therein that the assessee's income had escaped assessment because in the original assessment, depreciation on the cinema building had been allowed as ..... if it were a new building.6. the assessee appealed to the appellate assistant commissioner who upheld the order of the income-tax officer. the assessee went up in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Maya B. Ramchand

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-29-1985

Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Bom)66; [1986]162ITR460(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN232(Bom)

..... to section 2(6a)(e), of the indian income-tax act, 1922. we shall so read the question.3. by reason of section 2(6a)(e), 'dividend' includes :'any payment by a company, not being a ..... that sums of rs. 5,90,050 and rs, 8,70,891 are not liable to be treated as dividends under section 2(6a)(e) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 is in law justified ?'2. counsel are agreed that the allusion in the question should be ..... of rs. 2,74,716 or lesser amount was assessable as dividends under section 2(6a)(e) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 ?'12. it was decided by this court on november 29, 1977. (the judgment is cit v. ramchand jethmal : [1978]115itr384(bom) .) this court noted that the controversy as to whether the amount of ..... the tribunal was the year ended october 31, 1956 (the diwali year), for business and ordinary dividends. for deemed dividends under section 2(6a)(e), the income-tax officer had taken the year ended march 31, 1957, to be the previous year. the assessee's current account in the company showed that there had been ..... above two companies purely by way of temporary mutual accommodation and the overdrawn amounts could not be treated as 'dividends'.'9. the revenue appealed to the income-tax appellate tribunal. the tribunal noted that the matter had been discussed at length in its order for the assessment year 1957-58 and to quote the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.i. Rahimtulla

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-10-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)322; [1986]160ITR784(Bom); [1986]26TAXMAN614(Bom)

..... was one in which the public was substantially interested and the extent of its accumulated profits and thereby to decide whether section 2(6a)(e) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, applied. the income-tax officer found upon this basis that all facts necessary for the assessment had not been disclosed by the assessee at the time of the original assessment and that, ..... this case need to be set out in some detail. the original assessment was reopened by a notice served upon the assessee under section 34(1a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, by the income-tax officer, central, bombay. in the reassessment order that followed, he recorded that, subsequent to the original assessment, information was received that there had been an escapement of ..... words 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year' in section 34 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (which words are also used in section 147 of the income-tax act, 1961), postulated 'a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. what facts are material ..... accumulated profits ?20. it is necessary for the purposes of understanding the respective contentions to set out the provisions of sections 2(6a)(e) and 12(1b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the said section provided as follows :'2. (6a) 'dividend' includes - ...(e) any payment by a company, not being a company, in which the public are substantially interested within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhaktawar Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)5; [1986]162ITR452(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN7(Bom)

..... the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.'6. it was contended on behalf of the revenue by mr. dhanuka that section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, contemplated both the letting of a building and the letting of a plant. in the instant case there was no letting of the installation. section 56(2)(iii), therefore, ..... .11. there being no letting of the installation, the requirements of section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, were not met. accordingly, the income derived by the assessee form the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. it must be taxed as income from property.12. great reliance was placed by mrs. jagtiani upon the aforesaid decision of the supreme court ..... the agreements of the air-conditioning installation. the provisions of section 56(2)(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961, do not, therefore, apply, accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' but must be taxed as income from property. the question is so answered.18. there shall be no order as to ..... granted. the issue was whether the two lettings were inseparable so as to attract the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961.15. the decision of the karnataka high court in d. c. shah v. cit : [1979]118itr419(kar) is of much assistance here. a lease was given to the state bank of india of a building. air-conditioning .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F.Y. Khambaty

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-18-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)275; [1986]159ITR203(Bom); [1980]24TAXMAN29(Bom)

..... the ground that the residential status of the individual alone has to be considered and not of his wife and children for the purpose of section 64(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessee, f. y. khambaty, was a partner in the firm of m/s. f. y. khambaty & sons, kano, nigeria (referred to hereinafter as 'the said firm'). among ..... the tribunal that the aforesaid question has been referred to us. we may point out that it is common ground that the assessee had other income in respect of which he was liable to be taxed under the income-tax act in all the aforesaid assessment years. before considering the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be useful to take note of the relevant ..... the use of the said expression shows is that in considering what is total income under section 5, one has to exclude such income as is excluded from the scope of total income by reason of any other provision of the income-tax act and not that the other provisions of the income-tax act override the provisions of section 5 as suggested by mr. jetley. if we were ..... provisions of the income-tax act, 1961. sub-section (1) of section 64 of the said act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided for the inclusion of certain incomes in the total income of the assessee. relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of section 64 read as follows :'64. (1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-05-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)338; [1986]160ITR650(Bom)

..... relevant portion of para 2 of that order runs as follows :'in making any assessment under the indian income-tax act, 1922, all depreciation actually allowed under any laws or rules of a part b state relating to income-tax and super-tax, or any law relating to tax on profits of business, shall be taken into account in computing the aggregate depreciation allowance referred to in ..... of the buildings, machinery, etc., of the assessee for calculating the depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the act of 1922'). the assessee relied upon section 10(5)(b) of the act of 1922 and contended that the original cost of the machinery, etc., should be taken into account for calculation of depreciation ..... 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 ..... down value for the purpose of calculating depreciation under the indian income-tax act of 1922. it was urged by him that the nomenclature as an industrial tax was not material and the true nature of the tax shows that it was levied on the income or profits. the circumstance that it was levied on the income or profits of a particular industry was not material.10 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //