Mumbai Court October 1982 Judgments
Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1982
Reported in: [1984]7ITD57(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member - The Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd., the appellant herein, is a company carrying on the business in the manufacture of sugar, confectionery, sugar candy and sugar machinery. This appeal relates to its assessment for the assessment 1977-78, for which the previous year ended on 30-9-1976. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to following two additions made by the departmental authorities to the income of the appellant :i. Rs. 16,86,799 credited to levy sugar sale suspense account. ii. Rs. 64,534 credited to sales tax set-off account.2. In paragraph 4 of the assessment order, the ITO stated as follows, for adding the credit in levy sugar sales suspense account :'It is seen from the records, that the assessee-company has transferred Rs. 16,97,374 to levy sugar sales suspense a/c being difference received by the company between the price notified by the Government and price paid. The assessee-company has not taken any credit in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bina Mohamed Shakeel Wahid Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ762
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu has challenged in this writ petition the order of detention issued by the Government of Maharashtra in respect of the detenu known as Shakeel Ahmed alias Mohamed Shakeel alias Shakeel alias Shakil alias Javedali Akhtarali alias Dhobi alias Takku alias Taklu alias Airport, dt. 7th November 1981 and the continued detention of the detenu on various grounds. It is an admitted position that in pursuance of the said detention order dated 7-11-1981 the detenu was detained on 26th July, 1982 and the grounds of detention together with all the relevant documents referred to and relied upon were supplied to the detenu.2. Shri Jethmalani the learned counsel appearing for the detenu has contended before us that the ground No. 2 referred to in para 5.2 of the grounds of detention which is based on secret intelligence report dated 14-5-1980 and the ground No. 3 referred to in para 5.3 of the grounds of detention based on secret intellig...
Tag this Judgment!National Radio and Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1982
Reported in: 1983LC77D(Bombay); 1983(12)ELT214(Bom)
1. The petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 1st July, 1981 disallowing the deduction claimed by the petitioners for post-manufacturing expenses in arriving at the assessable value of their products for the purposes of excise duty. It also challenges orders refusing refunds of excise duty collected upon a value which took post-manufacturing expenses into account.2. It is not disputed by Mr. R. L. Dalal, learned counsel for the respondents, that the orders are invalid, having regard to several decisions of this court. Such details as are now set out are with reference to the suo motu contempt notice I propose to issue against the second respondent.3. The second respondent's order dated 1st July, 1981, was passed after he had been apprised of the law relating to post-manufacturing expenses as laid down by this court. Yet the order says this :-'It is observed that the goods in question are sold by M/s. NELCO in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time a...
Tag this Judgment!Nanubhai M. Patel Vs. Jagmohanlal Bilasari Rungta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR157
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the same suit. A.O. No. 416/1982, however, arises out of the order passed by the trial Court refusing to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the present appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, while First Appeal No. 710/1982 is filed by him, by way of abundant caution, against the ex parte decree itself challenging the same on merits.As will be presently pointed out, the appeal from order has got to be allowed because the learned Judge has dismissed the defendant's notice of motion for setting aside the ex parte decree without really applying his mind to the facts and equities of the case. Moreover, he has confused and jumbled between the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the merits of the defence. I am stating here that since I am allowing the appeal from order and setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the defendant, it is unnecessary for me to admit First Appeal No. 710/82 and to apprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Sadashiv Katdare Vs. P.K. Antia (Dr.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR5
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to challenge an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Bombay, on an application preferred by the petitioner seeking an order of attachment of certain properties, hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property' under section 146(1) of the Code. The facts leading to there proceedings have been set out in the judgment of the Court below and it is unnecessary for me to narrate them in great details. However, for the disposal of the points raised in this petition, I will mention only a few facts.2. A premises consisting of five rooms and also one common room forming part of what is called shop No. 2 in a building named Stadium House at Bombay was taken on lease by five doctors of whom one is the petitioner. This was done as long ago as in the year 1955. The petitioner was the occupant of one of the rooms wherein he was carrying on his profession as a radiologist. Unfor...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Prasad Shukla Vs. S.N. Ingole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR251; (1983)85BOMLR1; 1983MhLJ348
B. Lentin, J.1. On 14th June, 1968 the applicant was appointed as a Teacher in Shri Sanatan Dharma High School, run at Koliwada, Bombay, by a Society known as Koliwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha's Education Society whereof the 3rd respondent is the President. In 1970 the appellant was confirmed as Assistant Teacher. On 20th December, 1975 he was suspended from service. A charge-sheet dated 23rd December, 1975 was furnished to the appellant wherein 16 charges were levelled against him, one of them being character assassination of the Principal. An enquiry committee as provided by the Secondary Schools Code was constituted; one of the 3 members was the Principal, the other two were the respective nominees of the appellant and the management. The enquiry resulted in the appellant being found guilty of all the charges by the Principal and the management's nominee; the appellant's nominee found that the appellant not guilty of any of the charges levelled against him and recommended that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mohamed Ebrahim Vs. Eleventh Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD461(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1973-74, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1973.2. The only ground taken in the appeal is that the AAC erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 56,500 received by the assessee by way of reward from Customs Department is taxable.3. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 22,500 on 20-7-1972 and Rs. 34,000 on 30-6-1972, totalling Rs. 56,500, as reward from customs authorities. The assessee claimed that the amounts are exempt from tax under Section 10(17B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Under the same, any payment made, whether in cash or in kind, as a reward by the Central Government or any State Government for such purposes as may be approved by the Central Government in this behalf in the public interest shall be exempt from tax. This provision was inserted by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, but with retrospective effect from 1-4-1973. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the provision would be ava...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Prem P. Tharanee
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD482(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 16-2-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1975-76 The relevant previous year was the year ending 31-3-1975. the assessee is an individual deriving incojme from house property.2. During the previous year under consideration, on 3-7-1974, the assessee sold a flat in 'Cuffe Castle' held by him to Batliboi & Co.for Rs. 2,25,000. This flat had been earlier acquired by the assessee by an agreement dated 7-3-1969 with the builders before the multi-storeyed building was constructed. Subsequently, when the building was ready for occupation, the assessee had occupied the same in August 1971 in accordance with the terms of the original agreement dated 7-3-1969. The assessee calculated the capital gains on the sale of the flat and showed the same in the return. The ITO did not agree with the computation of capital gains returned by the assessee on two points. According to the assessee, the as...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Chanchalben Babubhai Panchal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom418
ORDER1. This revision application is filed by the person who had himself filed the suit as plaintiff in the City Civil Court as early as in the year 1966, and compromised the suit, and as a result of the compromise got extensive benefit to himself. As the consideration for the benefit he allowed the decree for possession to be passed against himself. On the strength of this consideration he enjoyed the possession for a period exceeding even of 15 years and now he wants to come to the Court and state that the decree for possession which was passed by the Court at his own instance is not an executable decree and that the same is not worth even the paper it is typed on.2. Attempts were made in the trial Court as well as in this Court for taking the Court almost astray by reciting a number of facts which really had no bearing upon the question with which the Court is concerned in these proceedings. I may have occasion to refer to some of them even though they are not relevant for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Noble Trading Co. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom108
Chandurkar, J.1. Both these appeals, the first of which is filed by the original petitioners and the other one by the State of Maharashtra, arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the petitioner's petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was partly allowed.2. The petitioners who are a company admittedly manufacture what are known as tailors' tapes and shoemakers'' tapes. They commenced manufacture of these tapes after their scheme for manufacture was approved by the Industries Commissioner, with a direction that they should sell the tailor's tapes after marking them 'Not for trade', 'clearly, indelibly and prominently'. They were issued a certificate of registration as a small scale industry by the Directorate of Industries of the Government of Maharashtra. However, for the first time on 18th July, 1968, they were informed by the Industries Commissioner that the letter dated 23-9-1964, by which their scheme to manufacture tailor's tapes was sanctioned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »