Mumbai Court August 1978 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.
Hari Kati Bode Vs. Rambhau Narayan Gadewar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR189; 1979MhLJ705
Kambli, J.1. The petitioner, Hari Bode was the tenant of field survey No. 17, area 13.6 acres of Mouza Hivardara, in Taluka Wani, District Yeotmal. Respondent No. 1 Rambhau was the tenure-holder of that field. On February 23, 1961 the petitioner executed a document purporting to be a surrender deed in favour of Rambhau, surrendering his tenancy rights in his favour. An application for verification of the surrender under Section 20 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) was filed on February 26, 1961. Before the surrender was accepted by the Tahsildar, Rambhau sold the filed on March 7, 1961 to respondents Nos. 2 to 4. After the petitioner came to know about this, he applied the very next day i.e. on March 8, 1961 for the cancellation of the surrender. On March 29, 1961, the Naib Tahsildar passed an order holding that the surrender is voluntary and accepted the surrender. It may be mentioned at this stage tha...
Caravan Containers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)249; [1979]120ITR636(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us in this reference is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the remuneration of Rs. 57,600 paid to the directors and other persons of the assessee-company during the accounting period ended 31st December, 1963, relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 was reasonable having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company and was admissible as deduction from the assessee's business income ?' 2. The assessee before us is a private limited company and the assessment year in 1964-65. In the year 1963, i.e. the year under consideration, the company enlarged the ambit of its business activity as mentioned in the statement of case, with the result that it enhanced the remuneration payable to the managing director and other directors; it also appointed one Dinubhai G. Desai as a liaison officer and paid him a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,400 for ten months. All these persons were concerned with the group controlli...
inayat HussaIn Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR227(Bom)
Tulpule, J.1. These two appeals against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, raise common question of law and facts. They are, therefore, being heard and decided together. 2. Special Civil Suit No. 237 of 1977, was filed by Inayat Hussain, appellant in A.O. No. 31 of 1977, while Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 1977, was filed by Smt. Sugarabi, the appellant in A.O. No. 32 of 1977. Both the suits were filed against the Union of India praying for a declaration that the property in suit belongs to them and was not liable to be taken for the satisfaction of dues against an assessee, Fakruddin. In both these suits, which were filed on March 3, 1977, an application for interim injunction was filed on March 15, 1977. The defendant, Union of India, appeared and filed their reply to the application for interim injunction and by the order passed by the learned trial judge on October 10, 1977, both the applications came to be rejected with costs. It is against this order of the tri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishnagopal Maheshwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(Bom)252
Kantawala, C.J.1. Krishangopal Maheshwari, the assessee, is a Karta of the Hindu undivided family. As a representative of the family he was a shareholder at the relevant time in Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the mills) which had its registered office at Amritsar. But the factory of the Mills was situate at Okara in West Pakistan. The assessee received certain dividends from the Mills and the question arose in connection with the inclusion of the dividends from the Mills in the total assessment of the assessee. The controversy in the present case related to the assessment year 1953-54, for which the relevant previous year was Maru Year 2008-09, ending October 17, 1952. Initially the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the year 1953-54 on June 9, 1953 on a total income of Rs. 1,19,918/-. This amount included the sum of Rs. 19,010/- which was taken to be dividends arising in Pakistan. In the order it is stated 'Pakistan income is to be taken for rate ...
Taherbhai Abdulalli Vs. Nagindas Gokuldas Saraf and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom41; (1980)82BOMLR204; 1979MhLJ624
1. The above first appeal arising in execution proceedings raises an Interesting point under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893.2. Under the decree for partition, passed in Special Civil Suit No. 277 of 1972, among the respondents, it was found that it was not possible to partition the property; and hence an application was made on Jan. 9, 1976 for sale of the property under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893.3. The property is house property bearing No. 541 situated at Raviwar Peth In Pune, On the application made by the plaintiff-decree-holder (Ex. 68), an order was passed on Dec. 4, 1976 to hold the sale by public auction of the suit property under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893. The sale was held on March 30. 1977 and the appellant happened to be the highest bidder at the said sale.4. In the meanwhile, on Jan. 7, 1977, defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 6 in the above first appeal, made an application under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893; appl...
Gordhandas Hargovandas and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Bom)19; [1980]126ITR560(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessees under s. 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. As directed, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to the High Court for its advisory opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to support the Tribunal's findings that the sums of Rs. 1,91,984 and Rs. 1,81,772 representing the sale proceeds of gold bars and jewellery were liable to be assessed as the undisclosed income of the assessees and whether the said finding is merely based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises (2) Whether, in any event, the Tribunal having accepted the genuineness of the sale of gold bars and jewellery and having only doubted the origin of the gold and jewellery, the said amounts of Rs. 1,91,984 and Rs. 1,81,772 could be legally brought to tax as income for the assessment year 1957-58, without any evidence or finding that the gold and jewellery sold had been purchased out of or re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›