Mumbai Court December 1980 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Indian Expanded Metals ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Bom)143; [1982]134ITR483(Bom)
Madon, J.1. This statement of the case has been stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the department and relates to the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65.2. One of the questions which arose for determination in the assessments of the respondent-company in respect of the above assessment years was whether the respondent-company was entitled to relief under the old s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which has now been omitted and replaced by s. 80J with effect from April 1, 1968. This question arose because the factory which the respondent-company had set up was located in portion of the building belonging to the Structural Engineering Works Ltd., which the said company had given on a lease to the respondent-company at an annual rent of Rs. 17,520. Under the said s. 84, subject as otherwise provided in the said section, income-tax was not payable by an assessee on so much of the profits or gains, derived from any indus...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1980
Reported in: [1982]136ITR746(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN85(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follow :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the payment of Rs. 77,756 made by the assessee to M/s. Grasso of Netherlands was not of a revenue nature and hence not allowable as a deduction ?'2. Facts giving rise to this references are as follow :3. The assessee-company was formed to manufacture various types of machinery including air compressors, pneumatic tools and was, at the relevant time, in its fourth year of production. The assessment year in questions is 1962-63, the relevant accounting year being the year ended on March 31, 1962. On January 2, 1962, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Grosso's Koninklijke Machinefabrieken N. V. of Hertogenboach, the Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Grasso'). The recitals to the said agree...
S.H. Motor Transport Company Vs. the State Transport Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR678
Desai, J.1. In this writ petition the principal challenge is to the vires of Section 47(1H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This provision was introduced in the enactment by Act 47 of 1978. In order, however, to appreciate the several nuances of the challenge, we may advert briefly to the catena of facts.2. The petitioners before us are a partnership firm, S.H. Motor Transport Company; It claims to be engaged in the trade of carrying passengers by road for the last over 40' years. Upto November 25, 1978, it was operating both over routes as also over inter-State routes. On the said date, however, a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was approved and notified by the State Government. When that scheme came into force, all intra-State routes within the State of Maharashtra were taken over by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (4th Respondents). Thereafter, the petitioner-firm continued to operate inter-State routes.3. In this petition we are concerned prin...
In Re: a Letter Dated 2nd/15th Sept. 1980 of Shrikant V. Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR251
Masodkar, J.1. By this Order, we propose to quell the storm raised in a tea cup and put an end to otherwise clearly an avoidable debate and controversy which is raised in our jurisdiction to punish persons for contempt of Court. Ordinarily, we do not make any speaking orders when there exists, as we will indicate, is the position of the present case, no ex facie case to issue process in contempt. However, as the matter has been debated before us and involves high officials as well as high principles and as particularly the learned Counsel requested, we propose to give our brief reasons.2. The proceedings; are initiated upon the order of the then Chief Justice, which has a genesis in a letter having been received by him from Mr. Shrikant V. Bhat, a practising advocate of this Court, bringing to the notice of the Chief Justice a report of the speeches delivered by Sales-tax Commissioner Mr. K. Padmanabaiah and the Chief Minister of the State, Mr. A. R. Antulay, on August 15, 1980. This m...
Kishore Ramchandra Kulkarni and anr. Vs. Vijayrao Narayanrao Borawake ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: 1981MhLJ721
M.P. Kanade, J.1. A principal contention raised in these two Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the notification, dated February 14, 1958 issued by the State Government while exercising powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act') would apply, or whether the amended Notification issued by the State Government under the said section, dated October 8, 1969 would apply to the facts of the present case and if the amended notification is to apply to the facts or this case, then as to whether the holding of the lessor is to be considered by exclusion of the lands sought to be resumed or even the lands sought to be resumed is also to be taken into consideration while determining the economic holding of such landlord.2. In these two Special Civil Applications the petitioner are true brothers. They separately hold the lands...
Wadilal Mathuradas JaIn Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom1
Palshikar, J.1. In this petition the Petitioner is challenging the orders of the authorities under the Gold Control Act.2. According to the central Excise officers at Amalner, the petitioner had gone to Bombay for purchasing gold on 2nd Feb., 1970 and was likely to return by a bus from Bombay on 4th February, 1970. The Superintendent, central Excise, Amalner, therefore , proceeded to Dhulia to apprehend the petitioner and at Dhulia to apprehend the petitioner and at Dhulia they found that the petitioner was travelling by a bus from Bombay to Jalgaon. He was asked to get down with all his luggage. Thereafter his personal search was taken by the superintendent. Central Excise, Amalner, in the presence of panchas and he found that the petitioner was wearing two gold patlies in crude form on both his hands. These patlies weighed 113.100 gms. Of gold. His luggage was,therefore, searched by the authorities and they found six gold patlies in crude form which were hidden in the bents for fitti...
Krishnabai Shivram Patil Vs. Ananda Shivram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom240
1. In this Second Appeal, the appellant was the defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for partition and possession of the plaintiff's alleged 1/2 share in the suit properties. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The plaintiff alleged that one Shivram Patil was the owner of the suit property. He was a widower. The defendant was a widow. She came and stayed with him as his mistress. In due course he executed a maintenance deed, Ext. 37, inher favour giving to her 1/2 share in the suit lands and a house which were to be in her possession for her lifetime. Shivram had a natural brother Govinda, who was separated from Shivram long ago. The plaintiff was the son of said Govinda. Shivram had no issue and hence, on 21st May 1957, he took the plaintiff in adoption and executed a registered adoption-deed in his favour on 28th May 1957. According to the plaintiff, the possession of all the properties was handed over by Shivram to him; but in the Revenue Records the propertie...
Dr. D.K. Belsare Vs. Nagpur University
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR494
Deshpande, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 by the Nagpur University, the respondent No. 1 to the Post of professor of Zoology in the University department and it is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of the following facts :2. The respondent No. 1, Nagpur University through its Registrar, respondent No. 2, advertised the post of a professor of Zoology in the University Department by virtue of its order dated January 13, 1972. The qualifications for this post were undoubtedly as follows as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition :i) At least a second class Master's Degree of a statutory Indian University or any degree recognised as equivalent thereto with all or at least 75 % papers in the subject concerned, with five years post graduate teaching experience and published research work;ii) A Doctorate degree in the subject concerned after post-graduation in the subject in second divi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›