Mumbai Court November 1980 Judgments
Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1980
Reported in: [1983]141ITR505(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN133(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 19 of the S.P.T. Act, 1963 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act') read with s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee.2. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 10,50,385 (pertaining to the customs authorities claim for additional customs duty), was a 'reserve' within the meaning rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,01,69,824 (pertaining to taxation), was a 'reserve' within rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs 1,07,50,000 (pertaining to trade marks), was a 'reserve' within rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?'3. The facts giving rise to this...
Tag this Judgment!Devi John Vazirani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom152
ORDER1. The petitioner's case is that she is a member of the Sindhi Immigrants Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as 'the said Society'): That the said Society allotted to her a plot bearing No. 107-A. That she put up a building thereon known as John Devi Mansion consisting of four small flats. That she has in her possession two flats on the first floor. That in so far as the ground floor is concerned, she had given out one of the flats to S. P. Nayak on leave and licence basis since about 1st June, 1972.2. It is the petitioner's case that this Nayak committed several breaches of the terms and conditions of the licence and further failed and neglected to pay the compensation due under the agreement. That she also needed this flat for her personal use and occupation. That she called upon the said Nayak to quit, vacate and deliver up vacant possession of the said fiat to her. That the said Nayak turned round and pleaded that he was a protecte...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Mahindra and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Cit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1980
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Bom)168; [1982]135ITR191(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN89(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference made under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the assessees. This reference arises from two appeals filed before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal by Harish Mahindra and Keshub Mahindra, respectively. These appeals were disposed of by the said Tribunal against the assessees, and the said assessees made applications to the said Tribunal for making a reference. It is on these applications that a consolidated statement of case has been prepared and furnished by the Tribunal. As the issues and facts involved in the cases of both the said assessees are the same, it is common ground that it is sufficient if the facts in the case of Harish Mahindra are set out. The said facts, giving rise to the said reference, are as follows :Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. was initially a private limited company. As per its balance-sheet as on 31st October, 1953, its paid-up capital consisted of 2,400 shares of Rs. 50...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.K. MaraThe and Co., Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT301(Bom)
ORDERShri M.V.N. Rao, Addl. Secretary and D.N. Lal, Joint Secretary1. This is a batch of three revision applications received from the same petitioners on common issue and, therefore, these are being dispose of through this order.2. The Government of India have carefully considered all the three revision applications and the points urged at the time of personal hearing granted to the petitioner's counsel. The facts briefly are that the petitioners are claiming refund of C.V. duty paid on consignments of silicone oil/silicone fluid in all these three cases, and in the case covered by F. No. 371/3001/78-Cus. II, the Government observe that the appeal failed on account of limitation under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the other two cases, the claim failed on account of limitation under Sec. 27(1) of the aforesaid Act. The break-up is as follows :-1. F. No. 371/3001/78-Cus. IITime barred under Section 128Date of communication of theorder-in-original. 9-3-78Date of filing of the app...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT189(Bom)
Parekh, J.1. The petitioners' case is that between 9th October, 1971 to 30th April, 1973 they manufactured vegetable nonessential oil (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to 'V.N.E.' Oil). That they converted this V.N.E. oil into tallow which is a vegetable product. That this was done at their factory at Hay Bunder. That they had these goods cleared and taken to their loan factory, i.e. Bombay Soap Factory at Ripon Road. That whilst doing this, they had represented to the Excise Authorities that this tallow fell under Item No. 13 of the Central Excise Tariff of India and by reason of Notification No. 8(3)56, dated 14th January, 1956 it was exempt from duty. That after this tallow reached the Bombay Soap Factory, it was used for the manufacture of soaps. That the loan company, i.e. Bombay Soap Factory, cleared the soaps under their licence and paid duty thereon. That the petitioners were and are liable to reimburse the Bombay Soap Factory in respect of this duty on soap.2. It is the...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Shankar Walve and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom300; 1981MhLJ881
Deshpande, Ag.C.J. 1. These seven petitions raise a common question of and can, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment, The lands in dispute, notified for acquisition u/ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Act), are all situate in village Dhandarphai (BK). Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners in these seven petitions are the owners of those different lands. It is not in dispute that these lands are sought to be acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons, affected by the Upper Pravara Project in Ahmednagar District. The Government of Maharashtra has issued a Notification dt 16th May 1978 u/s. 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Re-settlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The provisions of the Act are made applicable to the said Upper Pravara Project. The Notification also specifies the villages likely to fall in the affected or benefited zones of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Narayan Mantri (by L. Rs) Vs. Anant Shankarrao Samuel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom115
1. The appellants are the heirs of the original plaintiff whose suit for possession of the suit premises has been dismissed by the city civil court, for the sake of convenience the parties will be referred hereinafter as 'plaintiff and defendant'.2. The dispute relates to a flat in the building known as 'Shalka' situated at Shivaji park, Dadar, Bombay-28 Admittedly the plaintiff was the owner of the said flat and after his death his heirs Continued to be the owners thereof. Block No.1 on the ground floor of the said building is the subject matter of the dispute. The said block was let out by the plaintiff to one sitaram Tribhuvane sometimes prior to 1941, Sitaram was living in that block with his wife sulochana. Said sitaram Tribhuvane died in or about the month of Nov.1949, and after his death sulochana continued to occupy the said flat. The plaintiff transferred the rent receipt in respect of the suit premises in her favour. Sulochana herself had become very old and more or less help...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Bandu Patil Vs. Village Panchayat, Sidhanerli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom378; 1981MhLJ255
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner who is an elected candidate of Sidhanerli Village Panchayat in Taluka Kagal of Kolhapur district! has challenged the election of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as Sarpanch and Upasarpanch respectively of the said Village Panchayat, After the election to the Village Panchayat was held, the Presiding Officer for the elections of Sarpanch and Deputy or Upasarpanch fixed the election for the said posts on 29th of May, 1978, At the time of this election of the Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch the petitioner Maruti Bandu Patil, who was also one of the candidates, filed a written application before the Presiding Officer requesting him that voting for the said election should be by a secret ballot This request was opposed by 7 members of the Village Panchayat and the said members contended that voting should take place by show of hands. The Presiding Officer took a decision that voting should take place by show of hands and for this decision he gave t...
Tag this Judgment!Kores (India) Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT253(Bom)
1. This Special Civil Application raises two interesting points of considerable importance, viz., (1) Whether any excise duty is at all leviable on teleprinter rolls made by the petitioners, and (2) Assuming that such excise duty was leviable on such teleprinter rolls, whether the petitioners are entitled to the facility of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the excise duty paid on the tissue paper which was used by the petitioners making two-ply or three or more ply teleprinter rolls.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to refer to the facts of this petition which lie within a narrow compass :The petitioners are a Company carrying on the business of manufacturing and supplying diverse kinds of stationery articles including, inter alia, carbon papers, typewriter ribbons and teleprinter rolls at their factory at 1, Pokhran Road, Thane (West). The teleprinter rolls which are the subject-matter of this contr...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Kusum Charudutt Bharma Upadhye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93
Madon, J.1. The circumstances which led to this Special Bench being constituted are that on September 10, 1980 a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Shah JJ., while hearing an Appeal, namely, Appeal No. 308 of 1979 Filmistan Private Limited v, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, against the judgment and order of Pendse J., sitting singly on the Original Side, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained a doubt as to the competency of the said Appeal. Accordingly, they directed the papers in the said Appeal to be placed before the Chief Justice for him to constitute a larger Bench, if he so thought fit, for the determination of the question whether the said Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. Six days later, that is, on September 16, 1980, while another Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Madon and Kania JJ., were taking admissions in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »