Mumbai Court April 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Zamandas Vansimal Paryan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ383
Waikar, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who is common. The respondent was prosecuted for selling adulterated articles namely chilli powder In Criminal Case No. 6525/73 giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1977 and Bundi Ladu (in Criminal Case No. 6526 of 73) giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1979. Both these cases were tried together, common evidence was recorded and both the cases were disposed of by common judgment by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent.2. The respondent runs a hotel known as Azad Bharat Hindu Hotel, within the limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. On 27-6-1973, the Food Inspector visited this hotel and purchased 500 gms. of Bundi Laddu and 600 gms. of chilli powder from the respondent. The respondent sells, food products, which include Bhajie, Aluwada, Bundi Laddu, etc., The quantity of Bundi Laddu and Chilli so purchased were sampled as per rules by the Food Inspector in the presence o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prabhudas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)8
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to this Court u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was entitled to carry forward and set off losses from speculation business incurred in the asst. yrs. 1963-64 to 1965-66 against the profit of Rs. 2,17,329/- from speculative business of the year under reference ?'2. Since on hearing the Counsel we are satisfied that the controversy raised in the question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court, we do not think it necessary to set out the facts of this case in detail. The relevant facts may, however, be briefly set out. The assessee firm incurred losses in speculation business amounting to Rs. 2,72,992/-, 3,74,510/- and Rs. 24,282/- in the asst. yrs. 1963-64, 1964-64 and 1965-66 respectively and undisputedly the loss arose in speculation business in shares. This loss was apportioned between the three partne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-ii Vs. Nariman B. Bharucha and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)1CTR(Bom)17; [1981]130ITR863(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN76(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question referred in this reference at the instance of the revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that there was a valid charge in favour of Mrs. Aloo on the profits of the firm and to that extent the income of the firm was diverted by an overriding title ?'2. One Shri Nariman B. Bharucha was in the assessment year 1965-66 a sole proprietor of the business carried on in the name of the assessee-firm which was then an unregistered firm. The assessee later took his two sons, Shri Jal and Shri Minoo, as partners and formed a partnership. The partnership agreements were changed from time to time, but we are concerned with the deed of partnership dated 24th September, 1963, by which Shri Nariman was made a sleeping partner as from 1st April, 1963, because he was disabled from working as a partner. Each of the two sons was given 37 1/2 paise profits in the partnership and the father, Shri Nariman, was a par...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Trade Wings Private Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: [1980]126ITR399(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN206(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee-company which was carrying on business as travel agents joined hands with some other travel agents' firms and a new company known as M/s. Travel corporation of India Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was formed with an authorities capital of Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 46,660 equity A shares of Rs. 10 each and 4,53,340 equity B shares of Rs. 10 each. On the others with the Travel Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd., under which the assessee transferred the inward foreign Tourist activities to the Travel Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd., and the Travel Corporation of India2. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1962-63, this sum of Rs. 58,300 was treated as capital gains in the hands of the assessee by the ITO. The AAC held that there was an exchange or relinquishment of an asset by the assessee, the value of which was estimated by him as on January 1, 1954, at Rs. 10,000 and the amount of capital gains was th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Hindustan Industrial Ag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: [1982]135ITR436(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN204(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions in respect of two different assessment years which have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue are as follows :1. Assessment year 1963-64'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 61,449 is assessable as business income or should be considered only for purposes of computing capital gains ?' 2, Assessment year 1964-65'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surplus of Rs. 38,175 realised on the sale of 2,500 shares is assessable as business income or should be considered only for purposes of computing capital gains ?'2. The assessee-company which at the material time carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Hindustan Industrial Agencies Pvt. Ltd., and which now functions as Scope (Pvt.) Ltd., was dealing in electric motors, diesel oil engines, etc., and all its shares were held by one Shri D. D. Desai and his wife, Smt. S. D. Des...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay Ito-iii Vs. Vasantrai B. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Bom)187; [1982]133ITR411(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN279(Bom)
Kanta, J.1. This is a reference under s. 64(1) of the E. D. Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-III.2. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of 40% of the goodwill of the partnership business amounting to Rs. 27,600 was includible in the principle value of the estate of the deceased ?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : One Bhavanidas Harjivandas Mehta, the deceased, expired on 17th Oct., 164. The deceased was a partner in the firm of M/s. Bhavanidas Gangadas & Co. with 50% share therein along with two other persons, being his two sons, Vasantrai B. Mehta, the accountable person herein, and Jekisandas B. Mehta. The said two sons had a 25% share each in the said partnership. The said partnership was constituted under a partnership deed dated 12th Jan., 1960. It wa...
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)194
Chandurkar, J.1. The question raised on behalf of the assessee arises out of assessment proceedings for the asst. yrs. 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee credited the following amounts in respect of these two years to the development rebate reserve in the accounts of the assessee :As on 1-7-1963 Rs. 9,75,952/-As on 1-7-1964 Rs. 10,72,000/-In the computation of the assessee's business income, the rebate actually allowed to the assessee was Rs. 8,83,388/- for the year ending 30th June 1963 and Rs. 9,46,576/- for the year ending 30th June, 1964.2. Under the provisions of s. 34(3)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, the amount equal to 75% of the development actually allowed came to Rs. 6,62,541/- for the asst. yr. 1965-66 and Rs. 7,09,932/- for the asst. yr. 1966-67. There was thus an excess in the development rebate reserve over the amount statutorily prescribed u/s. 34(3)(a).3. The ITO for the purpose of capital u/r 1 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, included the e...
Harkubai G. Sundechamutha Vs. Shankar Daulat Bengane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Bom384; 1980MhLJ671
Masodkar, J.1. This petition has been placed before the Division Bench by an order of the learned single Judge dated November 27, 1979. for the learned single Judge felt that there was a conflict of decisions in two Division Bench cases being : AIR1965Bom19 Zadba Sadashiv Balpande v. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Special Civil Appln. No. 160 of 1969 decided on June 24, 1971. Few facts may be stated to decide the present controversy.2. The present petitioner relying on her right to inherit the property of Jamanabai who died on February 6, 1965, after giving notice applied for resumption of land for personal cultivation under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. In the inquiry held by the Mamlatdar the application was rejected while the Special Deputy Collector in appeal held on merits that the petitioner was entitled to resume the land to the extent of 1/2 of the tenanted area. The matter was taken up before the Revenue Tribunal....
Y.K. Nalavade and ors. Vs. Ananda G. Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom109
Deshpande, J,6.* Mr. Sail relies on Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in support of his second contention that Ananda's adoption, cannot have the effect of divesting Dhondi, of the property held by him since 1929, It is necessary first to ascertain what precisely was vested in Dhondi in 1929 to find out if any process of divesting is involved at all in Ananda's claim to half share in the said property.7. Admittedly, Govinda died when he was living joint with his brother Dhondi leaving behind him, his widow competent to adopt. The property held by Dhondi, admittedly is ancestral and he must, therefore be held to be holding it as the sole surviving coparcener. That the widow Gitabai has only a right of maintenance, has no bearing on the question. In the case of Sitabai v. Ranichandra reported in : [1970]2SCR1 , the Supreme Court held that the family of a sole surviving coparcener, with a widow ...
Y.K. Nalavade Vs. Ananda G. Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR454
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. [After reciting facts His Lordship proceeded] : Mr. Sali relies on Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in support of his second contention that Ananda's adoption, cannot have the effect of divesting Dhondi, of the property held by him since 192S. It is necessary first to ascertain what precisely was vested in Dhondi in 1929 to find out if any process of divesting is involved at all in Ananda's claim to half share in the said property.2. Admittedly, Govinda died when he was living, joint with his brother Dhondi leaving behind him, his widow competent to adopt. The property held by Dhondi, admittedly is ancestral and he must, therefore be held to be holding it as the sole surviving co-parcener. That the widow Gitabai has only a right of maintenance, has no bearing on the question. In the case of Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra : [1970]2SCR1 , the Supreme Court held that the family...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »