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.
Laxman Jayaram Shant Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR15; 1981CriLJ387; 1980MhLJ833
ORDER1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, dated January 11, 1980 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miraj, dated July, 27, 1979 convicting the accused-petitioner herein under S. 7(1) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. For relevant and material facts which give rise to this revision application as as under -The complainant - Sitaram Yeshwant Chandanshive (P.W. 1), who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, and hails from Kumbhari in Jat taluka of Sangli district, was employed as 'Nakedar' in the Agricultural Department of Government of Maharashtra, and he at the material time was posted at the village Daphlapur in Jat taluka of Sangli district. The petitioner-accused was also employed in the Agricultural Department as an Agricultural Assistant. He was also posted at Jat, a Taluka place in San...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR560(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN435(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is a cement manufacturing company and was resident in India in the relevant accounting periods. Out of its 16 cement factories, two factories we re located in Pakistan. The income accruing or arising to the assessee from its two factories in Pakistan was included in the total income determined as per the Indian assessment as well as the Pakistan assessment for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The relevant accounting periods were the years ending on July 31, 1959, July 31, 1960, and July 31, 1961, respectively. The figures of income from the said two factories determined under the Indian laws and under the Pakistan laws for all the said three years were different.2. Under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as 'DTAA') under s. 49A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to s. 90 of the I.T. Act, 1961...
Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-i Vs. Trustees of Miss Gargiben ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)352; [1981]130ITR479(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN446(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference which arises out of three separate appeals disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal in respect of the liabilities of the trustees on three different trusts, the terms of which were identical, raises the following question for decision of this court at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of determining the tax payable by the assessed-trustees in terms of section 114 read with section 161 and section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the undisbursed capital gains added to the trust corpus, the normal trust income payable to the beneficiary and separately charged to tax in her hands could not be taken into account ?'2. The assessment year in question in all the three cases is 1966-67 and the assessees are the trustees under three separate trusts, all dated October 19, 1953, referred to briefly as the Gargi Trust, Rohini Trust and Hemnalini Trust. Unde...
Harkisondas Gokaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Bom)215; [1982]136ITR288(Bom); [1981]6TAXMAN169(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follow :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, and on the correct interpretation of the partnership deed dated March 17, 1961, the Tribunal was right in refusing registration to the assessee-firm ?'2. One Gokaldas Mulchand and his son, Harkisondas Gokaldas, were partners of the assessee-firm. With effect from November 1, 1959, another son of Gokaldas, namely, Anilkant gokaldas, was taken as a partner of the assessee-firm. On the clauses of the partnership deed provided that on the death of any of to the partners 'the said partnership shall not and shall not be deemed to have been dissolved as from the date of death of the said partners' and shall be deemed to continue as before taking the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partners as partners in his place.3. Harkisondas Gokaldas, a partner of the firm,...
H.i. Kazi Vs. J.C. Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1980
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR171]; (1981)IILLJ410Bom
1. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.). The petitioner was originally employed as a tally clerk and in the year 1970 he was arrested on the charge of theft. On 21st April, 1970 an order was passed suspending him from service. After being convicted by the Magistrate, the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court on 5th/6th February, 1973. A copy of the judgment acquitting him was sent by the petitioner to the officer concerned, of the B.P.T., on 10th February, 1973. By letter dated 21st February, 1973, the petitioner was asked to resume duties, which he did on 22nd February, 1973.2. On 14th May, 1974 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner intimating about the proposed departmental inquiry against him, based substantially on the same allegation on the basis of which he was prosecuted and ultimately acquitted. On 10th March, 1975, the Deputy Docks Manager addressed a letter to the petitioner intimating that the superannuation age had been raised f...
J.R. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Bom)347; [1980]126ITR476(Bom); [1980]4TAXMAN522(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee who had purchased more than 51% shares of Chopda Electric Supply Co. Ltd., became its managing director with effect from March 1, 1948, and the appointment was to continue for a period of 20 years. The assessee was to get a fixed remuneration of Rs. 300 per months as also a commission of 10% on the net profits of the company. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1960-61. Chopda Electric Supply Co. Ltd., was carrying on the business of generating and distributing electricity under a licence issued by the State Govt. The company was not making profits and admittedly the assessee neither drew the monthly allowance of Rs. 300 nor did he receive any amount by way of commission at any time.2. In 1952, the company borrowed monies from the Bank of India and the assessee stood surety for the repayment of the loan advanced by the bank to the company. The company had also executed a promissory note in favour of the assessee and the assessee has...
inayatullah Rizwi Vs. Rahimatullah and Other
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1398; 1981MhLJ249
Waikar, J.1. In these two Criminal Revisions Applications (Criminal Revisions Applications Nos. 120 of 1978 and 158 of 1977) which were pending before the learned single Judge (Tulpule J.) one for admission and the other for final hearing respectively, a common question of law raised before him was one of interpretation of the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (hereafter called the Code).2. Against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the present opponents non-applicants in these two revision applications had filed Criminal Revision Applications in the Court of Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Sessions Judge allowed their revisions and feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Sessions Judge, the present applicants (i.e. the unsuccessful parties before the Sessions Judge) filed these two revisions in this Court.3. According to the learned single Judge, a second revision to the High Court, even at the instance of the unsuccessful opponents before...
Bhogilal Virchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Bom)32; [1981]5TAXMAN65(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question, which has been referred at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 9,000 was assessable for the assessment year 1960-61 ?'2. The answer to this question turns on the proper construction of the provision of s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The assessee, who is the proprietor of a Kirani Stores, was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 21,347 for the assessment year 1960-61, for which the relevant previous year was Sanvad 2015, i.e., from November 13, 1958, to October 12, 1959. On the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1962-63, that there were cash credits of the amount of Rs. 9,000 in the books of the assessee in the name of one Smt. Gajibai Maganlal in the month of March, 1960, the ITO reopened the assessment of the assessee for the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61. I...
Kasturchand Ramlal Badjate Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR8; 1981CriLJ1328
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 29th March, 1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad rejecting the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, the petitioner has filed the present petition.2. The facts, according to the petitioner, that give rise to the petition are, that some information seems to have been lodged with the police on 19th March, 1980. That in pursuance of this information the police raided the house of the petitioner on 20-3-1980 and seized 149 bags of cement. That he was asked to explain the possession of these bags. That he, the petitioner stated that he was to construct a floor to his existing house and hence he had collected those bags of cement. That 49 bags were brought on a permit of his contractor Pahade, while the other 100 bags were brought on a permit of one Nilegaonkar. That the police, attached the said 149 bags of cement. That the, police then recorded Pahade's statement and Pahade stated that 49 bags pertained to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.R. Karandikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Bom)196; [1981]6TAXMAN242(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been referred to us under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follows :'Whether there was any evidence in support of the Tribunal's finding that the high denomination notes did not belong to the three assessees, Karandikar, Phatak and Desai and in support of the finding that they belonged to outside parties ?'2. This reference arises out of the assessment proceedings for the year 1946-47, in relation to the assessment under the Act made on the three assessees, Karandikar, Phatak and Desai. Their income as originally assessed was Rs. 28,162, Rs. 19,141 and Rs. 22,432, respectively. All these three assessments were, however, reopened under s. 34 (1) (a) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, and in reassessment proceedings certain amounts were added as undisclosed income of the three assessees as follows :Rs.(1) H. R. Karandikar 2,92,000(2) D. B. Phatak 2,39,000(3) M. G. Desai 4,24,0003. Desai was a director in a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »