Mumbai Court September 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.
Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Two Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT394(Bom)
1. The Petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act and are one of the pioneers in the manufacture of cold rolled high carbon and alloy steel and special steel strips in India. Under the provisions of the Import Trade Control Policy, the petitioners are entitled to import hot rolled stainless steel strips being the actual users. The import is canalised through the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which awards contracts for the raw material supply to the actual users on the basis of worldwide tenders floated by the Corporation.2. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had issued a release Order dated March 29, 1974 in favour of the petitioners whereby the petitioners were required to approach the Corporation for securing the allotment of 100 tonnes of hot rolled stainless steel strips in coils of C.I.F. value of Rs. 10,00,000/-. In pursuance of the aforesaid release order, the petitioners approached ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Radheshyam Gopikishan Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR11
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1979 is filed by the appellant, the State of Maharashtra, challenging the order of acquittal dated December 18, 1978, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. There was four days' delay in filing the said criminal appeal and, therefore, the State of Maharashtra preferred Criminal Application No. 824 of 1979 praying for condonation of delay. I heard both the sides on the question of limitation. There is no serious opposition and, therefore, I condone the delay. Rule is accordingly made absolute in Criminal Application No. 824 of 1979.2. The respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was tried for offences punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad on deputation at Jalna. It is alleged by the prosecution that the sample of mirchi powder taken from the shop of the accused was foun...
R.J. Menzies Vs. Suryakant Karuti Chidrawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR513
P.S. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of a suit field by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner for possession of the suit premises under the Bombay Rent Act. The suit premises consist of a two room tenant on the 1st floor in a building known as Auryavilas' in Pune. The contractual rent is Rs. 8.50 p. per month together with 16 paise per month towards educations cess. By a notice dated October 30, 1974, the respondent terminated the petitioner's tenancy on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay rent of the premises since March 1, 1973 and thus he was a defaulter for more than six months. By this notices, the tenancy was sought to be terminated by the end of November 1974. The petitioner sent a reply dated November 7, 1974 denying that he was a defaulter in payment of rent. He contended that the respondent had refused to accepter which was sent by the petitioner by various money orders. It is also stated in his reply that all t...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mafalda Faria
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD981(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one filed by the accountable person and the other filed by the department, are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The deceased was a Flight Engineer working in Air India. He died on 1-1-1978 in an accident while on duty. The employer made the following payments to the legal heir of the deceased : 1. Compensation for death under Rule 31 of the Service Regulations read with Establishment Order (clause 15) : Rs. 16,200. 2. Accident insurance paid under regulation 31A of the aforesaid Regulations read with Clause 49 of the aforesaid order : Rs. 60,000.The accountable person did not include the aforesaid three sums in the return on the ground that they did not form part of the estate of the deceased. The Assistant Controller, however, held that the amounts were dutiable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ("the Act"). He relied on the decision in the case of CED v. A.T. Sahani [1970] 78 ITR 511 (Delhi) 3....
New Chemi Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT920(Bom)
1. The question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim advantage of partial exemption notification dated June 9, 1975 in respect of payment of Customs duty.2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners pursuant to an import licence dated August 5, 1974 imported certain goods by ship, which crossed the custom's barrier and territorial waters on July 30, 1975. On that day the import of the goods was governed by the benefits granted by the Notification of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) dated June 9, 1975, whereby the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), exempted endosulfan being imported into India in a commercially pure form from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon as...
Uni-sankyo Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT922(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and have established a factory at Hyderabad in collaboration with M/s. Sankyo Company Limited, Tokyo, for manufacturing of 'Fungal Diastase' and certain other products. The petitioners were granted an import licence dated October 19, 1968 for importing complete machinery for the manufacture of Sanzyme. The machinery was imported from time to time and the petitioners cleared the consignment as per the procedure of the customs authorities. The material arrived at India in the Port of Bombay on or about February 20, 1970 and April 25, 1970, and the necessary bills of entry in connection therewith were filed by the petitioners and import duty paid on the basis of value shown in the said bills of entry. The duty paid by the petitioners was on the basis of provisional assessment made on the strength of invoice value. Certain correspondence took place between the petitioners and the Appraising Officer, Special Valuation Br...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Automobile Products of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR159(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN327(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference the following two questions stand referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for out opinion:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 24 lakhs, received by the assessee in terms of the agreement dated April 29, 1981, from Premier Automobiles Ltd. is a revenue receipt ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in permitting the Department to raise before it for the first time the alternative contention that any capital gains arising from the receipt should be assessed ?'2. It is stated in para. 14 of the statement of the case that question No. (2) was referred at the instance of the assessee, which had itself not filed a reference application. The decision of the Tribunal was partly against the Commissioner and partly against the assessee. The Commissioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the sum of Rs. 24 lakhs received by the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)237; [1983]140ITR67(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question is referred to us for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following amounts are includible as 'reserve' within rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?Rs. (1) The provision for bad and doubtful debts 1,05,262(2) The amount of proposed dividend 40,00,000(3) The provision of retirement benefits 30,04,497 ?'2. In this case we are concerned with the assessment year 1963-64, with the accounting year ending on June 30, 1962. The assessee is a limited company. In its return for the assessment year 1963-64 if has included the said three amounts in its capital as reserve for computation of capital under the Supers Profits Tax Act, 1963.3. As regards item No. 1 namely, Rs. 1,05,262 representing provision for bad and doubtful debts, and item No. 3 namely, Rs. 30,04,497 representing provision for retirement benefit, it is agreed between the l...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)124; [1982]137ITR34(Bom)
Rege, J.1. In this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay Bench 'A', Bombay, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purposes of computation of capital employed in the industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the written down value of the assets should be taken without deducting the allowance made under section 32(1)(iv) of the said Act ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1966-67, with the relevant accounting year ending on 30th April, 1965. In its assessment return the assessee-company had, on the basis that it was a newly created undertaking, claimed relief under s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it then stood. Under the said s. 84 the relief admissible was to the extent of the profits or gains which did not exceed 6% per annum on the capital employ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Bom)129; [1982]137ITR42(Bom); [1982]8TAXMAN186(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference two question stand referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C'. The reference is under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 :'(1) Whether, on the facts an in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,21,772 being the initial depreciation was not to be deducted in determining the written down value of the assets of the company (building and compound wall) for the purposes of rule 3(1)(a)(i) of the Indian Income-tax (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertakings) Rules, 1949 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o the case, the Tribunal was justified in including the amount of Rs. 1,59,50,000 for the purposes of computation of the capital employed by the assessee for giving relief under section 15C of the Indians Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. It would appears to us that the answer to be given to question No. 1 is now concluded by our decision given this morning in Incom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »