Mumbai Court September 1979 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.
Khatijabai Abdulla Soomar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Bom)126; [1980]124ITR160(Bom); [1979]3TAXMAN137(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This case has been stated under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, and two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person, namely, the applicant. These two questions are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 32,079, being the amounts due on insurance policies assigned by the deceased to his wife, had been rightly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, apply in respect of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 gifted by the deceased to his two grandchildren ?' 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, when this reference reached hearing before us, Mr.Munim, learned advocate for the applicant, stated that the applicant did not desire this court to give any answer to this question. Accordingly, we refrain from expressing any opinion ...
Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Government of India and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: 1983LC728D(Bombay); 1983(12)ELT46(Bom)
1. The 1st petitioner is a private limited company and carries on business of manufacturing adhesives, dyestuffs, chemicals, paints, synthetic resins, etc. The 1st petitioner was also manufacturing pigment dispersions (emulsions) and one of the pigment dispersions manufactured by the petitioner was made from Carbon Black and was known as 'Acron Black G. Supra Cone'. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was enacted on February 24, 1944 and Section 3 of the Act provides that there shall be levied and collected in such a manner as may be prescribed, duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. The First Schedule was amended from time to time and by Finance Act, 1955, Item No. 22-I(5) was introduced which reads as follows : '22. PIGMENTS, COLOURS, PAINTS,ENAMELS, VARNISHES, BLACK ANDCELLULOSE LACQUERS.I. * * *(5) Pigments, colours, paints and Seven rupeesenamels not otherwise per cwt. ifspecified. sold b...
Vasant Tatoba Hargude and ors. Vs. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom341; 1980MhLJ229
Deshpande, J.1. This case raises a question of importance as to the authority of any statutory tenant to assign his tenancy rights and is referred to the Division Bench by Kanade, J., because of his difference on this point with the view of Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar indicated in the case of Hargovind Dharamsey & Co. v. Ruby & Co., : AIR1979Bom89 . The facts so far as relevant to the point raised are not in dispute. The petitioners are the heirs of the landlord -- original defendant. He was the owner of house C. S. Nos. 319 and 320 situated at Peth Bhag, Sangli. House C. S. No. 319 with which we are concerned, consisted of a ground floor and the first floor. Both the houses were let out to one Labhashankar Pandya in the year 1940. He sublet the ground floor of House No. 319 to one Gopalkrishna. He was running a hotel therein. Sub-tenancy of Gopalkrishna was held to be valid in an earlier Civil Suit No. 138 of 1956 by the landlord against him and the tenant, long before Section 15 of t...
Kirloskar Cummins Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS21D
1. The question which arises for determination in this petition relates to the proper construction of the exemption Notification No. 82-Cus., dated August 6, 1960 and the answer to the question would depend upon the determination as to whether the 'countervailing duty' forms part of the customs duty. 2. A few facts which have given rise to this litigation and which are not in dispute are as follows :- The petitioners carry on business as manufacturers of diesel engines and for the aforesaid business, the petitioners utilise certain imported components. The components imported by the petitioners were liable to customs duty and such components attracted the levy under the provisions of the Customs Act read with the Indian Tariff Act at the rate of 50% ad valorem. The duty for import of complete diesel engines under the provisions of the Customs Act read with Indian Tariff Act was at the rate of 27 1/2% ad valorem and duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act 5 1/2% of the ad valorem...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Shirinbai P. Pundole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: [1981]129ITR448(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The is an application under s. 256 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'), for directing the Income-tax Appeallate Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court for determination the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's tenancy of the flat in Rutty Engineer House taken on lease in 1964 did not constitute a 'capital asset' within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I. T. Ac 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the surrender of the tenancy right to M/s. Jolly and Maker Pvt. Ltd, in exchange for an ownership flat in the ruling 'IL PALAZZO' did not constitute 'transfer' under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Ac 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transfer referred to in question No. 2 did not attract capital gain under secti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune-i Vs. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: [1983]140ITR304(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application, made at the instance of the Commissioner of - of Income-tax, under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the said Act '), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court for determination of the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the close, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the effective date of amalgamation is July 1, 1971, relying only on clauses (1), (2) and (3) of the scheme of amalgamation without considering the scheme of amalgamation as a whole 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the effective date of amalgamation is December 31, 1971, ignoring the; Provisions of clause (15) of the scheme of amalgamation and sanction of the Controller of Capital issues given on December 31, 1971 3. Whether, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the consent from the Con...
Rashidkhan Vs. Maltibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Bom343; 1980MhLJ428
ORDER1. The basic facts involved in these two petitions are common and, therefore, they are being disposed of by one judgment.2. The respondent, Smt. Maltibai became an exclusive owner in respect of field Survey No. 24/1 measuring 6 acres 35 gunthas and 25/1 measuring 4 acres and 36 gunthas both of village Akot in District Akola by virtue of a sale deed dated 4-12-1947. Petitioner Gulab son of Puran in Special Civil Application No. 386 of 1974 is concerned with those fields. On 1-4-1957 the respondent created a tenancy in respect of these two fields in favour of one Shri Puran, the father of the petitioner Gulab. On 28-12-1958 notice was given by the respondent terminating the tenancy on the ground of bona fide personal cultivation. This was followed by an application dated 30-9-1959 under Section 36 (2) read with Section 39 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' filed before the Tah-sildar, Akot, for possession. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona-i Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR988(Bom); [1979]4TAXMAN352(Bom)
Madon J.1. This is an application under s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the CIT for an order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to this High Court the following four questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that reassessment proceedings under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, were not valid and in holding that the Appeallate Assistant Commissioner was justified in annulling the reassessment order made by the Income-tax Officer (2) Whether, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the mere nothing of the Income-tax Officer on the letter dated December 3, 1970, stating that the proceedings were already dropped could not be considered as an order to terminate the proceedings and further holding that the reassessment proceedings were no...
Ashok Shankar Gholap Vs. Krishnarao H. Deshmukh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom224
ORDER1. The petitioner in this election petition was a candidate for the election to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from Barsi Constituency. The election was to be held in the month of Feb. 1978, The nominations were required to be filed by the candidates on or before 1-2-1978. Accordingly the Petitioner filed his nomination paper on 1-2-1978. Under Section 34(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the case of an election to the Legislative Assembly a candidate is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 250/-. However, if the candidate is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 125/- only. The petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 125/- on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste, namely Khatik community. When the nomination papers were scrutinised on 2-2-1978 the nomination of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer, Barsi Constituency, who is the Respondent No. 2 herein, on the ground that the p...
Vasantrao Kesheorao Dharangaonkar Vs. Leelabai Gajraj Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom398
ORDER1. This civil revision application is preferred by the original defendant against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, striking out a part of the defence raised in the written statement, purporting to act under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, or in the alternative for refund of consideration. The subject matter of agreement was one house.3. The defence raised by this applicant was that there was an agreement of sale, but it was essentially a transaction of loan. He further pleaded that the property in question was a joint family property and he alone could not enter into a contract of sale of the same. He further pleaded that some of the property was in possession of some persons and their joinder was, therefore, necessary.4. The non-applicant filed an application dated 11-8-1977 (Ex. 13) calling for better particulars. The application was opposed by this applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »