Mumbai Court June 1975 Judgments
Rambabu Bapuji Jaibheye Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Bom224; (1976)78BOMLR658; 1976MhLJ443
Kania, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of certain proceedings taken under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.) The petitioner held certain lands at Chanegaon, taluka Jalna, district Aurangabad. The petitioner filed a return under Section 12 of the said Act. Proceedings were then started under Sections 14, 17 and 21 of the said Act before the Special Deputy Collector, Land Ceiling, Aurangabad. In these proceedings the petitioner took up several contentions on the basis of which he contended that he was not the holder of any surplus land. It was held by the Special Deputy Collector that the family of the petitioner consisted of five members and he was entitled to a ceiling area of 108 acres. The Special Deputy Collector determined the holding of the petitioner as comprising of 129 acres 17 gunthas, and hence came to conclusion that the surplus area held by t...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Nemani Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR244(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred for our determination by the Tribunal is : 'Whether the loss of Rs. 63,892 in hessian cloth suffered by the applicant was rightly treated as a speculation loss ?' 2. The short facts leading to the question may be stated. The question relates to the assessment year 1955-56, the relevant accounting year being calendar year 1954. The assessee, M/s. Madanlal Nemani Pvt. Ltd., as a private limited company having manifold business activities. Its main business was to act as the selling agents of the textile mill named New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. The assessee also carried on speculation business in cotton and several other commodities such as castor seed, bullion, shares, etc. Except in the year in question the assessee did not do any business either ready or speculative in jute. During the accounting year under telephonic instructions which were issued by the assessee to M/s. Ispahani Ltd., a company at Calcutta which was carry...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Iii Vs. D.D. Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR390(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from properties held under trust created by the assessee by the deed dated December 24, 1947, was exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment year 1960-61 for which the corresponding previous year is the financial year 1959-60. The assessee settled on trust certain properties by an indenture of trust dated December 24, 1947. The supreme object of the trust was to effect revival by spreading and giving currency to the Karma Marg mingled with Bhakti as substantiated by Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj and to the Tatwadnyan as expounded in Dnyaneshwari with the intention of annihilating the decline that had set in religion. The trust was to establish at the holy place of Alandi the institution of Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj and to the Tatwadnyan as expo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR196(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. Two questions are referred under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for our determination. They are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the air-conditioning equipment installed by the assessee in its safe deposit vault can be said to be machinery or plant which consists of office appliance as referred to in the second proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the relief contemplated under section 56A and under section 49B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was available in relation to the whole of the dividends without reducing the same by interest and administrative expenses ?' 2. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is conceded by the revenue that it is covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. New great Insurance Co. Ltd., and that question No. 2 has to be answered in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR270(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue the following three questions, which pertain to several years, are referred for determination by the High Court. Question No. 1 referred pertaining to all the years, viz., 1962-63 to 1966-67, is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see was entitled to reliefs and rebates on the gross dividend income without deducting any amount by way of proportionate management expenses ?'2. Question No. 2 relates to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief in respect of interest on tax-free securities without deducting any amount by way of proportionate management expenses ?.'3. Question No. 3 relates to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 and is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, safe deposit vaults constituted 'plant' within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Namdeo Gade Vs. Dattatraya Vishnu Maval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR602
Deshpande, J.1. Deceased Dattatraya, the father of the respondent, was the owner of the lands in dispute. The lands were held by the petitioner as his tenant. The deceased made an application under Section 33B of the Tenancy Act on March 27, 1962 for possession of the lands for bona fide personal cultivation, after obtaining certificate under Section 88-C thereof. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Khed, allowed it on October 14, 1964. The tenant challenged this order in appeal on January 3, 1969, i.e. more than four years after the expiry of sixty-days limitation period, alleging that the impugned decision was not communicated to him. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord died and his son, the respondent, was brought on the record, as his heir. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Mamlatdar for a fresh inquiry into the bona fides and holdings of the respondent. Respondent's revision application, however, was allowed by the Revenue Tribunal on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›