Mumbai Court November 1976 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.
Ramgopal Shrikisan Asawa Vs. Satyanarayan Ramniwas Phofalia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Bom14; 1977MhLJ474
Jahagirdar, J.1. On City SurveyNo. 2880/6, in the city of Sholapur, there was a godown, bearing Municipal No, 748/5, belonging to one Rajkumar Laxmi narayan Rathi. Two-third of this godown was rented to Ramgopal Shrikrisan Asawa, the petitioner in the present petition, on a monthly rent of Rs. 69-64. In 1968 the said Rajkumar issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner with effect from 31st March 1968 and follow-ed this up by filing a suit on 4th May 1968 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, for possession of the leased premises on various grounds. This suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 444 of 1968, was filed by the said Rajkumar, as already mentioned, for possession on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the petitioner had sublet a portion of the suit premises for parking of a car, that the petitioner had made a permanent construction without the consent of the landlord and lastly that the landlord required t...
Dhananjaya and ors. Vs. Gajra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom436; ILR1977Bom2598; 1977MhLJ463
1. These four appeals can be disposed of by common judgment as they raise a common question of law. That question is regarding the interest of the purchaser from a widow in the joint Hindu family.2. The property sold in the four appeals together with certain other lands, house property, moveables etc. belonged to one Deoobhau who died in the year 1954. He left behind two widows, one Malubai and the other Deokabai. Deoobhau had two sons by his wife Malubai named Dhananjaya and Zankarsingh who are appellants 1 and 2 in each of the appeals. Malubai, their mother is the third appellant. Deokabai had four daughters through Deoobhau by name Gangabai, Tulsabai, Jaiwantibai and Jamnabai who are party defendants as her heirs. The suit with which we are concerned in Second Appeal No. 434 of 1965 was brought by purchaser Gajrabai. The other suits were by the other three purchasers from Deokabai. Deokabai died on 11-7-1961. Prior to that but after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act she h...
Babulal and Sons Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1976
Reported in: 1977MhLJ324; [1978]41STC89(Bom)
Masodkar, J. 1. This petition questions the validity of the order made on 6th January, 1970, under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Act, by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Ranges I and II, Nagpur. The period of assessment with which that order is concerned is of 1st January, 1964, to 31st December, 1964. 2. The petitioner is a dealer and licence-holder. He deals in foreign liquor. It appears that no return was filed though tax was paid for this period and, therefore, proceedings were initiated by issue of show cause notice on 9th February, 1967. Return was required to be filed and for the purposes of this petition it is not necessary to go into the details of that proceedings. Eventually an order was made on 28th November, 1967, by the Sales Tax Officer against the petitioner. The total turnover found by the Income-tax Officer was Rs. 5,98,720.47. Deductions were allowed till 16th December, 1964, on the ground that general ...
Ghatge and Patil (Transport) Ltd. Vs. Madhusudan Ramkumar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom299; (1978)80BOMLR512; 1977MhLJ365
Apte, J. 1. The petitioners who were original defendants in the Court below are a public limited company doing business of transport by road and having their Head Office at Kolhapur. They have also sub-offices at different places to accept goods from the clients and to carry them to their destinations and deliver them to the consignees. 2. One of their offices is at Belgaum and also one at Pimpri within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Poona. 3. The respondent is a shop styled as M/s. Madhusudan Ramkumar of which Shamsunder Lalchand Mundada is the proprietor. It is doing business of dealing in cloth at Poona. 4. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff placed an order for some handloom sarees with one Harinarayan Govindlal Zanvar of Shahapur, which is a suburb of Belgaum. Harinarayan Zanvar on receiving this order, entrusted a bundle containing sarees ordered by the plaintiff to the defendants at their Belgaum office under what is allied 'Goods Forwarding Note' at Exh. 72. At...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I Vs. Tata Engineering and Loc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR869(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made to this court by the Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any mistake apparent from the record in the original orders passed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, which could justify the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 for both the years ?' 2. The short facts are that the assessee, which is public limited company, manufactures locomotives and trucks and for the two relevant assessment years it was regarded as having a new industrial undertaking that manufactures automobiles enabling it to obtain the relief under section 15C of the Act. Under section 15C, tax was not payable by an assessee on profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking which satisfied certain conditions mentioned in the section up to the extent of 6% o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Ii Vs. Estate and Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR119(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference to the High Court at the instance of the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred for our consideration by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as follows : 'Whether, on a proper interpretation of sections 56, 57(ii) and 32(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 70,700 brought forward since 1952-53 could be off against the business income assessed in the assessment year 1963-64 when the source in respect of which the depreciation was computed had ceased to exist.' 2. A few facts may be stated : 3. The reference arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64, the relevant previous year being the period 1st August, 1961, to 31st July 1962. The assessee is a limited company which was incorporated in 1947. It purchased a large plot of land at Malad and the same was being sold in parcels. The income from such sale was assessed as business income of the assessee-...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. D.M. Turner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas144(Bom); [1978]111ITR943(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference made by the Tribunal to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred for our opinion. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessees in accordance with the scheme of arrangement became entitled to the shares (Madurai shares) on December 19, 1959, is justified in law ?' 2. The question raised really falls within a narrow compass, namely, as to from what date the Madurai shares, which were obtained by the two assessees in specie in a voluntary winding up in respect of their original shareholdings in that company, become of their ownership, whether they become of their ownership on the date of the voluntary liquidation or the date when these shares are actually handed over to the assessees or when they are actually transferred to their names in the register of shares of the company of which the shares in specie are given to them. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Ratilal Tarachand Meht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR71(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This is a reference made by the Tribunal to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question of law referred to us for our opinion runs thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 54,000 was a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee ?' The assessee, Ratilal Mehta, is an individual, whose main source or income was property which he had constructed at Ghatkopar. The question relates to the assessment year 1960-61, corresponding previous year being the one which ended on 31st march, 1960. Admittedly, the assessee constructed a property for a sum of Rs. 93,432. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 39,432 was secured either by way of loans or by way of deposits from the tenants. The balance amount of Rs. 54,000 was claimed to have been received by the assessee as pagdi or salami from his tenants. In respect of these amounts which he received as pagdi or salami, no receipts were issued by him to t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City - Ii Vs. Shivlal Desai and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR377(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is reference at the instance of the Commissioner under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed under section 28(1)(c) ?' 2. In our opinion, the question as farmed seems to suggest that sitting as a court of the appeal we can consider the propriety of the decision of the Tribunal in cancelling the levy of penalty on the assessee. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction is limited one, it becomes necessary to re-frame the question as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was unreasonable or perverse ?' 3. The re-framed question in our opinion will bring out the true controversy which only can determined by us. The ...
Yamunabai Govindrao Mahajan and anr. Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Bom405
Masodkak, J.1. These two petitions arise out of land acquisition proceedings initiated for the purpose of Nagpur Improvement Trust relating to Khasra Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75 of Mouza Pardi, in which the petitioners in these cases have interest. Though initially petitions have been filed seeking several reliefs including the one for the quashing of the scheme known as 'Eastern Industrial Area Street Scheme' and also seeking further entitlement of compensation as per the principles and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the hearing Mr. Deo stated that the petitioners do not press their prayers with regard to the validity of the Industrial Area Street Scheme, As to the other prayers regarding the compensation, the learned counsel states that the matter is being considered in the appropriate forum under the provisions of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act 1936 read with provisions of Land Acquisition Act and with liberty to question the eventual decision on the grounds raised in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »