Mumbai Court January 1982 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Seth Hemant Bhagub ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)261; [1983]140ITR471(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN90(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The two questions which have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act at the instance of the Revenue are as follows:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the belief of the ITO that the income of the assessee-trust had escaped assessment of the assessee-trust for 1962-63 was in consequence of any 'information' in his possession received after the date of the original assessment made on October 12, 1962 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITO acted without jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under section 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1962-63 ?'2. Strictly speaking, on the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the ITO, when he made the original assessment for the assessment year 1962-63 in the case of the respondent-trust, had already knowledge that the construction of the terms of the trust placed by the Appellate Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax was contrary to the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Investment Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)198; [1982]137ITR307(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN83(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee-company, which is an investment company, had underwritten the subscription for the shares issued by the United Board and Paper Mills Ltd. and had, therefore, to take up 76,809 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each on which Rs. 7.50 was paid up. The assessee had also purchased 2,380 preference shares of Rs. 100 each on which Rs. 75 was paid up. The paper mills was mismanaged and apprehending that the preference shareholders would force the ordinary shareholders to pay the uncalled portion of the equity capital, which would result in requiring the assessee-company to pay Rs. 1,92,000, the assessee-company moved the court for a winding up of the paper mills and ultimately succeeded in taking the company to liquidation. The company had incurred legal expenses in the two assessment years in question which it sought as deduction in computing its income. The claim was, however, rejected by the ITO on the ground that the expenditure was of a capital nature.2. The AAC als...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Devandas Perumal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)211; [1983]140ITR943(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN104(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee does the business of purchase and sale of fruits. In the assessment year 1964-65 the firm returned a total income of Rs. 35,957. The ITO, however, estimated the profit at 4% of the sales of Rs. 22,00,000 at Rs. 88,800 as against the net profit at Rs. 23,000 on the sales of Rs. 21,94,223 disclosed by the assessee. According to the ITO, proper account books were not maintained by the assessee, as, according to him, there was no check on the expenses and the purchase price paid. This assessment was confirmed by the AAC.2. Thereafter, invoking the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the case had been referred to the IAC, under s. 274(2). The IAC, holding that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was attracted and the the assessee had not discharged the burden laid on him by the Explanation, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,164.3. The assessee appealed against the order of penalty. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Babu and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1982
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas135(Bom)
Kulkarni J.1. These twenty appeals by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common judgment and awards dated January 19, 1982, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, in Miscellaneous (MVC) Cases Nos. 2 to 21 of 1980, on his file, allowing them and awarding different amounts of compensation in each case and holding all the respondents, including the present appellant insurance company, liable.2. The omnibus bearing Registration No. MER 2790, belonging to respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was hired by 13 adults and 7 children for making a pilgrimage to various places like Udipi, Dharmasthala and other places. After finishing the pilgrimages, they were returning the Bangalore by about 10.30 p.m. on July 19,20, 1979. Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal was driving the said omnibus. According to the claimants, he was driving the said omnibus in a rash and negligent manner and at a terrific speed. While the omnibus left the road...
Tag this Judgment!Chemitex, Goa and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2130(Bom)
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners seek a declaration that Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, and by way of writs of certiorari and mandamus, or by writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, or by any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the setting aside of the Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-1963 inasmuch as the same is applying the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the forthwith return of the goods and documents seized by respondents no. 2 to 4.2. The facts of the case are as under :Petitioner no. 1 M/s. Chemitex is a partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing artificial leather cloth and having its factory at Corlim, Goa. On or about 22nd/23rd February, 1980, officers of the respondents carried out simultaneously searches of the petitioner's factory at Banastarim, Goa, office premises at Panjim and office premises at Bombay and seized a large number o...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdayal Rambilas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)232; [1982]136ITR414(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN151(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm having four partners, one of whom is one Durga Dutt Anantram. three partners including Durga Dutt belong to the Thard family and are related to each other. The fourth partner, Rukmanand, is however, said to be a stranger.2. ON January 25, 1945, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was put in fixed deposit with the Indian Bank Ltd., at Bombay and the amount was later sent by mail transfer to the bank's branch at Pudukottah, then an Indian State. The fixed deposit receipt which was issued in the joint names of Shivkaran Thard and Radheshyam Thard on January 29, 1945, however, bears the date January 25, 1945. Shivkaran is Durga Dutt's son and Radheshyam is said to be the name of the son of Shivkaran. The address of the depositors was, 'care of Durga Dutt Anantram, Thard Bungalow, Malad, Bombay'. The fixed deposit receipt which was initially for a period of one year was renewed for another year and for a further period of three months. It matured on April...
Tag this Judgment!Star Diamond Tools Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD696(Mum.)
Where assessing officer mentioned to charge the interest under section 139(8) but omitted to compute the same and did not initiate penalty proceedings therefore the order was erroneous and prejudicial so as to be revised.Charging of interest under section 139(8) was compensatory and when the Income Tax Officer had made refund to the assessee, then there was no question of charging interest under section 139(8). It was further observed that, as it was manifest that the delay in the filing of the return was not explained, the assessee was in default, and as the Income Tax Officer had not taken action to initiate penalty proceedings, impliedly he had not applied his mind and decided not to do so, the order of the Income Tax Officer was, therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Commissioner was, therefore, within jurisdiction to take action under section 263.1. The assessee has made this appeal against the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Manibai Wd/O Haribahi Parmar and ors. Vs. Manohar S/O Chandulal Balwan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR228; 1982MhLJ338
V.A. Mohta, J.1. On whom does burden lie to prove that the lease is in violation of Clause 22 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949 ('the H.R.C. Order' for short) is a question to be determined in this second appeal.2. Factual background is this : respondent (original plaintiff) purchased House No. 119 in Municipal Ward No. 2 at Wardha by registered sale deed dated 26-12-1972 from Smt. Ambabai Bapurao Kalaskar and Smt. Manormabai Pundlik Mudholkar. The appellant (original defendant) was already occupying the ground floor of the said house as a tenant for running a hair cutting saloon. The tenancy was monthly commencing from 1st of each month. The defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff after due attornment. Sometime latter the plaintiff approached the Rent Controller for permission to terminate the tenancy in terms of the H.R.C. order on the ground of bona fide occupation. The defendant contested the matter on merits but neither questioned the relat...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom387; 1982(1)BomCR819; 1982MhLJ840
1. Normally I would have discharged the rule in this petition on the threshold itself because it challenges an interlocutory order passed by the Additional chief Judge of Small Cause Court at Bombay disallowing the exhibition of sale-deed on which the petitioner wanted to rely. Since, however, the petition has been admitted and rule granted on the same and since arguments have been advanced before me on the interpretation of a judgment of this Court I have proceeded to hear and dispose of this petition on merits.2. Before the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court reliance had been placed by the petitioners on a sale deed but the executant of the sale-deed but the executant of the sale-deed was not examined. The proof of the signature of the executant, however, was offered but that itself could not prove that contents of the sale-deed or the truth of the contents of the sale-deed. On this ground the learned Judge refused to exhibit the sale-deed. While so doing he reli...
Tag this Judgment!Sardarsingh Harisingh Bagga Vs. Shrirang Ramratan Chandak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR286
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner Sardarsingh is the tenant of Block No. 306/24 belonging to the respondent Shrirang Chandak situate at Mofusil Plot Amravati. The respondent landlord filed an application in November 1971 against the present petitioner-tenant under Clause 13(3)(iii), (v) and (ix) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 before the Rent Controller. The petitioner tenant field his written statement and upon recording evidence and hearing parties, the Rent Controller rejected the landlord's application on all counts to terminate the tenancy under the various clauses of the Rent Control Order. This was in Revenue Case No. 135/71(2)/71-72 dated 5-7-1973.2. The respondent landlord feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector having Rent Control Appellate Powers at Amravati. This was registered as Appeal No. 12/71(2)/73-74. The Appellate Court upon hearing the Counsel of both sides agreed with the Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »