Mumbai Court December 1974 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bombay Samachar (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1974
Reported in: [1979]120ITR819(Bom)
Vimadalal, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee, The Bombay Samachar (Private) Ltd., referring three questions to this court for its opinion under S. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. These questions are set out in the first paragraph of the statement of the Case. 2. As far as the first question is concerned, the sum of Rs. 4,996 mentioned therein was the loss caused on account of devaluation of the Pakistani rupee on 1st August, 1955. Learned counsel for both the sides are agreed that that question is concluded, at any rate as far as this court is concerned, by two decisions of this court, the first being its decision in the case of CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd. : [1962]46ITR590(Bom) and the other being its decision in the case of CIT v. Mehboob Productions Pvt. Ltd. : [1969]74ITR676(Bom) . Question No. 1 referred to us must, therefore, be answered against the assessee. 3. As far as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, both of them relate to the sum of Rs. 62,078 due ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S. Gupta and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC427(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, are that the respondents, Messrs. S. Gupta and Company, were carrying on business since a number of years without getting themselves registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 Act'), or, after the coming into force of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Act'), as a dealer under the 1959 Act. Upon coming to know of the said fact, the Sales Tax Officer (III), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay, issued two notices to the respondents dated 1st March, 1962, and 11th June, 1962, respectively. The notice dated 1st March, 1962, was in respect of the period 1st April, 1954, to 31st December, 1959, which period was covered by the 1953 Act, and the notice dated 11th June, 1962, was in respect of the period 1st January, 1960, to 12th December, 1961, which period was covered by the 1959 Act. It is...
Tarachand Hajarimal Oil Mills Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC313(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These three reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), raise a common question of law. These reference arise out of Reference Applications Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of 1970 respectively. These three reference applications relate to the assessment periods of 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, 1st April, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, and 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, respectively. Apart from the fact that the assessment periods are different, the facts in these references, in all material particulars, are the same. Hence, the three reference are being disposed of by us by a common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to these references are as follows : The applicant carried on the business of manufacturing edible oil. He used to purchased groundnuts from his commission agents. Although the applicant was a registered dealer, he did not hold a recognition certificate and the purchases effected by him were without...
Dhondiba Parshuram Kakade Vs. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1974
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR31
Lentin, J.1. Both these petitions are filed to set aside the order, dated February 16, 1974 passed by the Collector of 'Poona, viz. the respondent No. 2, directing the deletion of the names of the petitioners from the voters' list of the respondent No. 1-Karkhana, Both these petitions have common facts and involve for decision common points of law and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in Special Civil Application No. 1101 of 1974 and the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in Special Civil Application No. 2271 of 1974 are shown as producer-members in the Register of Members of the respondent No. 1-Karkhana, which is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (referred to hereafter as 'the Societies Act'). The respondent No. 2 is the Collector of Poona.3. The elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1-Karkhana are held tri-annually. On August 18, 1973, an election programm...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kareem Ali Motibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC470(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The facts on which this reference arises may be briefly stated as follows : The respondent was assessed for the period from 29th October, 1962, to 17th October, 1963. During the period of assessment, on 7th September, 1962, the respondent entered into an agreement with the Government of Maharashtra under which the Government agreed to sell to the respondent and the respondent agreed to purchase from the Government certain forest produce described in the first schedule to the said agreement situated in the area specified in the said schedule, and on the terms and conditions stated in the agreement. Briefly stated the first schedule shows that the said forest produce consisted, in the area not meant for felling, of standing trees of teak and other first class species bearing marginal hammer-mark on a blaze at base and at breast height and standing miscella...
Ramesh Ramlal Narang Vs. M.G. Mugwe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ135
Deshpande, J.1. One Ram Lal Narang is detained by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under order dated 4th October, 1974, passed by him under Section 3 (1) '(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MISA') with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting other persons to smuggle goods. The said order was served on him on 5th October, 1974. Grounds for detention were served as required under Section 8 (1) of the said Act, on 11th October, 1974. The petitioner, the son of the detenu, challenges the validity of this detention order in this application dated 24th October, 1974, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The grounds served on the detenu go to indicate that the detenu has been indulging in smuggling goods and abetting other persons to smuggle goods since 1964. Three instances are detailed in these grounds and it is stated therein that 'in all probability you will continue smuggling goods and abetting o...
Hargovindji Chunnilal Bhayani Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Sarwajanaik Wachanala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Bom149; ILR1977Bom889; 1976MhLJ237
ORDER1. Refusal to interfere in the present controversy brought before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is likely to result in some hard and unjust results as far as the petitioner is concerned and is also likely to unjustly confer a benefit in favour of the respondent which was not intended by the parties as appears from the facts of the case. However, the matter before this Court arises out of a proceeding wherein the present petitioner cannot be helped and he must be left to his remedy under the general law.2. The respondent owns premises situate at Hinganghat. A block was in the occupation of the present petitioner which he was using for business purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month, He was thus a tenant of the respondent. The respondent wanted to construct a new building and it appears ample from the facts to observe that for that purpose wanted to have the premises vacated by the petitioner. Such a landlord could have satisfied the requirement...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Kumar Netram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1576
Bhole, J.1. The State has come here .in appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents accused, who are father and son and who were charged of having sold on 28-3-1072 adulterated 'Dalda' Vanaspati to the Food Inspector Kurlekar (P.W. 1). The accused own a shop by name 'Ashok Oil Depot' at 21 Babulal Tank Road and they deal in Vanaspati and other things. When the Food Inspector visited their shop, there was a smell of ghee emanating from the articles, which were being boiled in open tins as well as in aluminium vessels on kerosene stoves. According to the Food Inspector Accused No. 1 who is son of accused No. 2 was present at that time and later accused No. 2 also arrived there. Both were unable to tell him what the purpose was of boiling ghee on stoves. He, therefore collected panch witnesses and in the presence of panch witnesses purchased 1500 grams of Vanaspati for samples. After dividing the quantity in three parts he gave as usual one part of each of th...
Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1974
Reported in: [1978]114ITR671(Bom)
Vimadlal, J. 1. This is reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referring the following questions to us : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was rightly applied in respect of the three branches of the assessee-company, namely, 'Eastern Stores, Madras', 'Kishinchand Chellaram, Otacamund' and 'Kishinchand Chellaram, Coonoor' 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law and/or misdirected itself in law in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee-company merely on the ground that the stock tally was not maintained by the asessee and/or that the gross profits was lower than the previous year ?' 2. Though two questions have been formulated, the questions which really arises before us is only one and that question is, viz, whether there was any relevant material on which any reasonable person could possibly hold that the true profits of the assessee could not be determined...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Regal Hotel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC123(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The facts on which reference arises are as follows : Two persons D. C. Davierwalla and P. B. Boywalla, as the owners of the business of M/s. Regal Parsi Hotel, carried on this business in certain premises near Dhobi Talao which they had taken on lease. On 31st August, 1953, by an agreement in writing Davierwalla and Boywalla permitted one M. H. Bharucha to run the said hotel for a period of three years in the first instance with an option to Bharucha to renew the agreement for a further period of two years. Since several of the arguments in the matter turn on the construction of this agreement, we shall deal with the provisions of this agreement in some detail a little later. On 2nd September, 1968, the agreement came to an end and Davierwalla and Boywalla again started conducting the business of the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »