Mumbai Court October 1981 Judgments
Estate of Late Shri Maneklal A. Vs. Fourth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1981
Reported in: (1985)12ITD300(Mum.)
1. These six appeals, by the assessee, have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. The appeals relate to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. We are concerned in these appeals with the estate of Shri Maneklal A. Mehta, who died on 27-6-1969. He had executed a will and had appointed his wife, Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, as an executrix of the said will. The revised return for the assessment year 1970-71 was filed on 29-3-1979, in the name of Smt. Hirabai M.Mehta, the executrix of the will of Shri Maneklal A. Mehta (deceased).The returns for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 were filed on 21-3-1974, while the returns for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were filed on 30-9-1975 ; all these returns were filed in the name of Smt. Hirabai M. Mehta, the legal heir and executrix of the will of Shri Maneklal A. Mehta (deceased). Notices dated 12-2-1980 and 5-3-1980, issued by the WTO under Section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), were directe...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Jivaji Apte Vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (Dead) by L.Rs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR88
R.B. Mishra, J. 1. The present appeal by special leave arises out of an execution proceeding and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st of January, 1970 in Letters Patent Appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge in second Appeal. The appeal came up for hearing on September 24, 1981. After the conclusion of the arguments of the Counsel of the parties, we allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge for reasons to be recorded later, in the following terms :'This appeal is allowed with costs of this Court and the decree passed by the District judge is restored. Reasons will follow later on'.We now proceed to give the reasons.2. Respondent No. 1, Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (since dead and represented by his legal representatives) filed a regular Suit No. 215 of 1959 for the recovery of his dues from Kamla Pictures, Kolhapur of which Bapusaheb Naravanrao Mohite (since dead and re...
Tag this Judgment!A.B.C. Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD724(Mum.)
2. The assessee became the tenant of a shop room even prior to 1-1-1954. There were other shop rooms/flats also in the building.Towards the close of 1969, the tenants of the building alongwith the landlord decided to form a co-operative society of all the tenants. The society was incorporated on 18-4-1970. The tenants agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,81,000 to the landlord for acquiring his ownership rights and also to spend a sum of Rs. 3,35,000 for the repairs of the building.The share of the assessee in these came to Rs. 40,661. The landlord sold his ownership rights to the society on 27-10-1970. On 16-2-1975, the assessee sold his shop room to another for Rs. 4,11,000. This was inclusive of the furniture and telephone in the premises, which were valued at Rs. 9,649 and also of 5 shares in the co-operative society valued at Rs. 250. Thus, the sale price of the shop premises came to Rs. 4,01,101. The assessee contended that the sale related to two separate rights, namely, the tenancy ri...
Tag this Judgment!Wyeth (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.D. Bhatt, Inspecting Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)269; [1982]8TAXMAN189(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the ITO to issue notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 196-1. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : 3. The petitioner-company purchased on January 17, 1953, an open plot with some buildings constructed thereon. The buildings standing on the plot were used for running a factory of cotton textiles. On purchase, the petitioners made alterations in the standing structures to make it fit for being used as a factory for the production of pharmaceutical products. In March, 1953, the petitioners let out a portion of the land along with the structures thereon in favour of M/s. Geoffrey Manners and Company for a period of five years at the agreed rent of Rs. 8,600 per month. The petitioners were assessed for the first time in the assessment year 1954-55, and the petitioners in their return showed the income from...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Prasad Puranchand Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1292
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As both these petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Commissioner of police, Pune issued the orders of detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drugs-Offenders Ordinance, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, detaining the detenus Suganchand Puranchand Gupta and Anand Prasad Bishweshwar Dayal Gupta. According to the respondents it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. These orders of detention are challenged in these writ petitions on various grounds.2. Shri Paranjape, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that Section 3 of the Ordinance if read with the definition of phrase 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' makes no sense whatsoever and, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. E.H. Kathawala and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)268; [1982]135ITR384(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 7,894, being the collections made by the assessee on account of charity through sale bills, was liable to be assessed as income of the assessee liable to tax ?'2. The assessee, inter alia, carried on commission business in jaggery and collected an amount of Rs. 7,894 from various parties with which it dealt. The same was included in the sale bills. According to the ITO, since they were collected from the purchasers and included in the sale bills, they were sale proceeds, and he added the amount as per Instruction No. 169. This instruction is referred to in the order of the ITO (annex.'A'). The assessee carried the matter to the AAC, and before the AAC it succeeded in having the additions deleted. The AAC found that the payments were made voluntarily by the constituents. The AAC also accepted the contention tha...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Nair Vs. R.C. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR358
N.K. Parekh, J.1. The petitioner in this matter is the original accused No. 1 in Case No. 227/W of 1978 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, being aggrieved by an order dated 24th November, 1980, the petitioner has filed the present application for quashing the proceedings in Case No. 227/W of 1978.2. The facts that lead to this application are that one R.C. Mehta filed a complaint in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's 37th Court at Esplanade, Bombay which came to be numbered as Case No. 227/W of 1978. There were four accused in this case, one being Shashi Nair, who was accused No. 1 (the petitioner herein), one Tatoba Shewale, who was accused No. 2; one Prabhakar Rawtoo, who was accused No. 3; and one Raymond M. Ruben, who was accused No. 4 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the respondents No. 2 to 4 in this petition). (For brevity sake, the said R.C. Mehta is hereinafter referred to as the complainant whereas the said Shas...
Tag this Judgment!Hasmukhlal Amritlal Mehta and Others Vs. N.B. Sonavene and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT67(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated March 2, 1978 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, refusing to grant the application for gold dealers licence by holding that the petitioners have no experience of dealing in gold.2. The petitioners are partners of a concern know as M/s. Royal Plastic Box Manufacturing Co. and are doing the business of manufacturing of jewellery boxes as 11, Third Agiary Lane, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay 3. The petitioners applied for a licence to deal in gold in the prescribed form or November 30, 1970. Along with the application, the petitioners deposited the requisite amount as provided by the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 2 provides that on receipt of the application for the issue of a licence, the Administrator shall consider the matter set out in that Rule. The two main requisites which...
Tag this Judgment!Parle Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT142(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the companies Act and carry on business as bottlers of soft drinks and have a factory situated at Chakala, Andheri (East), Bombay. The petitioners for several years have been carrying on business of bottling soft drink such as Gold Spot, Limca, Rimzim etc., which are marketed under the registered trade mark of a concern known as Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners have entered into an agreement known as Franchise Agreement with the Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. on July 25, 1977 and on March 7, 1978. Under the said Franchise Agreement the petitioners from time to time buy the essence supplied by the Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. and utilise the same in the manufacture of soft drinks. The petitioners have installed an elaborate bottling plant in the factory at investment of about Rs. 95 lacs, all of which have been contributed from the assets of the petitioners. The petitioners purchase in addition to the essence numerous articles such as...
Tag this Judgment!Sahebal Rasulkhan Pathan Vs. Nanubi Kasimsaheb Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom382
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondent Mhanubi Kasimsaheb Shaikh, original plaintiff for getting specific performance of a contract of sale Exh. 34 dt 17th Aug., 1970. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property sold was a house situated at Siddeshwar peth, Solapur and the terms of the contract were reduced into writing. It was stated into writing. It was stated that Rs. 4,000/- were fixed as the sale price and Rs. 2,000/- were to be paid at the time of agreement as earnest money. It was also agreed that the sale-deed was to be executed with in a week from the date on which the said agreement was to be executed. It was further averred by the plaintiff that under the said agreement Exh. 34, two rooms were given in possession of the plaintiff on Aug., 17, 1970, The plaintiff stated that at the time of filing of the suit she was not in possession because she alleged that on 24th of Aug. 1970, the defendant took possession of the said two rooms. The plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »