Mumbai Court March 1981 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 Sales Tax Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Weaving Compa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC316(Bom)
Madon, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has stated this case under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), and has referred the following question of law to this Court for its determination :'Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of section 41(2) read with the notification issued under section 41(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that a precise quantification of the tax is not possible thereunder and, therefore, that provision was unenforceable ?'2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it will be convenient to set out first the relevant statutory provisions and then the facts which have given rise to this reference. Section 41 of the Act provides as follows :'41. Exemption. - (1) Subject to such conditions as it may impose, the State Government may, if it is necessary so to do in th...
Dattatray Shankarbhat Ambalgi and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom326; (1981)83BOMLR401; 1981MhLJ764
Palshikar, J.1. The petitioners in these two petitions are brothers and they own Various lands in Sholapur City. Consequent upon the passing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they filed returns as required by the provisions of the said Act. They had also applied for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Act. However, by an order dated 12-7-1977, their application was rejected and the exemption sought for was declined. Special Civil Application No. 138 of 1978 is directed against that order. As already stated they had filed a return of the lands held by them before the competent authority and an order dated 6-7-1978, was passed declaring certain lands as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order and the appellate authority vide its order dated 12-8-1978, remanded the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision. On remand the competent authority passed an order and the said order was confirmed in appeal ...
JaIn and JaIn and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Bom)17; [1982]134ITR655(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN48(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Invoking this court's jurisdiction under art. 226 of the Constitution, this petition seeks various writs and reliefs in respect of proceedings initiated and actually on the move against the petitioners under s. 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act').2. Petitioner No. 1, M/s. Jain and Jain, is a firm of chartered accountants, with petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 as partners who are closely related to one another, petitioner No. 4 being the uncle of the other petitioners. On the morning (10.30 a. m.) of February 12, 1981, respondent No. 4, C. B. Thadani, ITO, along with other officers and staff, went to the petitioners' office situated at Alankar Building, 208, Samuel Street, Bombay, premises being then closed. Thadani and his party waited there for some time when petitioner No. 3, B. C. Jain, arrived. On his opening the office, Thadani disclosed his identity and produced the warrants of authorisation under s. 132 of the Act read with r. 112 of the rules thereunder. ...
Dhanaji Fakira Mokashi and ors. Vs. Lahu Kamalakar Koli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom113
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment delivered by mukhi, J., on 7th/8th Jan. 1976, in first Appeal No.666 of 1973 , in first Appeal No.666 of 1973 in this court. It is the agreed position that, although respondents Nos. 10 to 12 have not been served, as no Bhatta has been paid for serving them, they are not necessary parties for the disposal of this appeal. At the hearing it appeared that the disposal of this appeal might involve a question affecting a public charitable purpose and hence notice should be given to the charity Commissioner, Bombay, regarding this appeal. Mr.kotwal, the learned Government pleader, has taken instructions from the charity commissioner and is appearing for the learned charity commissioner before us and hence no formal notice need to given to the charity commissioner. As there is no dispute regarding the order which should be passed in this appeal, it is necessary to set out only very briefly the relevant facts.2. On 27th Oct, 1967, Dhanaji Fakira ...
Patel Metal Production and Construction Company Vs. Deputy Collector ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Bom362
ORDER1. In this matter, considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975, as also the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, I find myself unable to agree with the petitioners that the petitioners have any interest in the land in question which land has, in an inquiry qua the owner thereof, been held to be a private forest covered by the aforesaid Acquisition Act, Indeed, the petitioners have been mere licensees with permission of the owner to quarry. The status of the petitioners is no higher and no better than that of a mere licensee. The interest of the petitioners is not that of even a lessee or an under-lessee. It is not open to the petitioners to challenge the declaration qua of the land in question as a forest, Person entitled to challenge the same was the owner of the land. He in fact did challenge it and an inquiry in that behalf, was in fact held. But at the inquiry, he does not appear to have seriously contested the issue as to whether...
In Re: Tri-sure India Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas197(Bom)
Bharucha, J.(Dated December 8, 1980)1. The petitioners were signatories of a prospectus which invited the public to subscribed for shares of Tri-Sure India Ltd. (now referred to as 'Tri-Sure'). The prospectus contained mis-statements. The petition is filed under the provisions of s. 633 of the Companies Act, 1956, to relieve the petitioners of the liability under s. 633 of the Companies Act for making the mis-statements.2. On 12th February, 1960, a company called the Indian Flange and Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in West Bengal as a private limited company. Its shareholders were the nominees of American Flange and Mfg. Co Pvt. Ltd. (now referred to as 'American Flange'). On 22nd April, 1960, Tri-Sure's name was changed to Tri-Sure India Pvt. Ltd. On 17th June, 1960, Tri-Sure was authorised to issue 3,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each on condition that within 24 months from its incorporation American Flange would sell 49% of its voting capital to Indian nationals at par. On 1st...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Jameal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)133; [1981]132ITR414(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The question which has been submitted to this court for its determination in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commission of Income-tax is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56, penalty could be valid levied on the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Relying upon the judgment of the Mysore High Court in S. C. Magavi Haveri v. CIT : [1967]64ITR409(KAR) , the Tribunal held that in respect of the assessment years in question, namely assessment years 1950-=51 to 1955-56, penalty could be validly levied upon the assessee only under the provision so the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and not under the provisions of s. 271(1)(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. After the order of the Tribunal an appeal was filed by the department in the Supreme Court Against the said judgment of the Mysore High Court, an...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-ii Vs. Mrs. Sushila Umedlal Zav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)24CTR(Bom)136; [1981]7TAXMAN322(Bom)
Mandon, J.1. The question which this court is called upon to determine in this reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the CED is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act have no application to the two sums of Rs. 60,000, each being the subject-matter of the trusts dated 31-8-1953 and 17-8-1957 created by the deceased ?'2. The above question had arisen in the estate assessment proceedings of one Tricumdas Mulji Shah who died on September 25, 1964. His widow, Bai Jadhavbai, who was the original accountable person died during the pendency of this reference and her six daughters who were the only children of the marriage of Bai Jadhavbai with the deceased have been brought on the record as the heirs and legal representatives of Bai Jadhavbai.3. The deceased had-executed two deeds of trust, the first dated Aug...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jasmine Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: [1981]47STC357(Bom)
Madon, J.1. The respondents are registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. They have also been certified by the Commissioner of Sales Tax as registered dealers who manufacture cotton fabrics for the purposes of entry 39 in the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra under section 41(1) of the said Act. During the period 1st January, 1969, to 31st December, 1969, the respondents purchased certain quantities of dyes and chemicals from other registered dealers by giving them declarations in form T to the said notification declaring inter alia that the dyes and chemicals purchased by them were required for use by them in the manufacture of cotton fabrics for sale. The dyes and chemicals purchased by the respondents were used by them in the manufacture of cotton fabrics for themselves as also for manufacture of cotton fabrics for others. They were assessed to tax under section 41(2) of the said Act on the ground that they had committed a contravention of the declara...
Controller of Estate Duty, M.P. Vs. Haji Sattar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Bom)134; [1982]135ITR330(Bom)
Madon, J.1. In this case which has been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 64(3) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the following two questions have been submitted to the court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 10 are not applicable in respect of the gift of Rs. 1,20,000 ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that only 1/4th and not the whole share of the value of goodwill of the firm has passes on to the accountable person ?'2. The facts in so far as they are material for the determination of the above two questions are very few and may be briefly stated. The deceased Haji Latif Gani Kachhi made a gift of Rs. 40,000 to each of his three sons on May 19, 1955. This amount was handed over to the sons. Three days later, on May 22, 1955, his sons entered into a partnership with their father under a dee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›