Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR9
M.L. Pendse, J.1. These proceedings are instituted by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the legality of the judgment dated October 17, 1981 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, confirming the order dated April 15, 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junnar, awarding maintenance amount of Rs. 100/- per month to respondent No. 1.2. The respondent wife filed and application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on July 29, 1980 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junnar. The parties are Muslims. The Marriage was contracted on April, 15, 1980 and the Talaq was given on June 16, 1980.3. The hearing of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was resisted by the husband by claiming that the divorce was at the instance of the wife and she is not entitled to the amount of maintenance. The second date of hearing was on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1982]138ITR365(Bom)
1. Two questions have been referred to us in this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The said question are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of s. 64(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income arising to Smt. Shashikala M.Pandya in respect of the amount of Rs. 15,000 deposited by her in the firm of M/s Nandlal & Company for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 arose from the assets transferred indirectly to her by her husband. Shri M. K. Pandya, the assessee, and as such is includible in the total income of the assessee for the said assessment years ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the making of the gift of Rs. 15,000 by Shri N. K. Pandya to his brother's wife, Smt. Shashikala M. Pandya, on August 12, 1965, which she deposited in the partnership firm, M/s Nandlal & Co. in which her husband, Shri M. K. Pandya and Shri N. K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)28CTR(Bom)183; [1982]138ITR360(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax.2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M/s Nandlal & Company. The relevant assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee' wife Leelavati was not a partner in the said firm of M/s Nandlal and Company, but was a partner in a sister concern known as M/s M. Kumar Enterprises. In the year of account, relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee's brother one M. K. Pandya, made a gift of Rs. 17,000 on January 17, 1966, to Leelavati, the wife of the assessee. The assessee had also made a gift of Rs. 15,000 on August 12, 1965, to Smt. Shashikala, the wife of his brother, M. K. Pandya. The ITO came to the conclusion that the two brothers, namely, the assessee and his brother, M. K. Pandya, had made cross-gifts to each other's respective wives, and as such there was directly or indirectly an accrual of inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR202
P.B. Sawant, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 30-9-1978 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, in exercise of his revisional powers under section 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act).2. The petitioner in the return filed by him under the Ceiling Act showed his total holding of agricultural lands as 20 hectares and 70 acres. Since his family consisted of himself, his wife, his minor son and minor daughter, his total holding according to him was below the ceiling of 21 hectares and 85 acres prescribed for a family unit under the Ceiling Act. He, therefore, claimed that there as no surplus land with him. The surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Sangamner, accepted this plea and by its order dated 25-3-1978 held that the petitioner was not a surplus land holder within the meaning of the Cei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR202
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The present second appeal by husband is against the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that his consent to marriage was obtained by fraud, namely, suppression of the fact of the wife's pregnancy from a third person at the time of the marriage.2. Following are the established positions :---1. The marriage between the parties took place on 13-5-1971 and at that time the husband was aged nearly 24 and wife aged 20.2. Wife delivered a female child on 22-11-1971 at her mother's place and the said child survived for nearly 8 days.3. According to husband it was a fully grown child and according to the wife it was premature.4. The husband had given a notice to the wife long before the delivery intimating that the child in her womb was not his and that this fact of the prior pregnancy of the wife was discovered by him during the first visit.5. Even acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD880(Mum.)
1. The following question has been referred to the Special Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v.ITO [IT Appeal Nos. 464 (Bom.) of 1981, 1966 (Bom.) of 1980 and 465 (Bom) of 1981] under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") : Whether the 'negative cost' incurred by way of foregoing of dividends from the profits of the company should be allowed under Section 48(17) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in computing the capital gains in the case of transfer of the shares? 2. Asbestos Cement Ltd., as agents to Turner & Newalla Ltd., Bombay, and Blundell Permoglaze Holdings Ltd., Bombay, are the interveners.3. During the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, the assessee-company, namely, Investment Corporation of India Ltd., sold certain shares held by it in various companies and declared capital losses amounting to Rs. 13,17,729, Rs. 28,27,202 and Rs. 16,30,352, respectively. While computi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom437; 1982(1)BomCR811; 1982MhLJ538
1. This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and order of the district judge , Ahmednagar sitting on the appeal on the judgment and order of the joint Civil Judge, Junior Division , Ahmednagar.2. On 3rd , May , 1950 the 10th respondent ( the original 1st plaintiff ) executed a deed in favour of one Madhav in respect of the land in suit . On 18th Nov, 1957 Madhav transferred the rights conferred upon him by the deed in favour of the 5th respondent. In 1957, one Sohanlal , the holder of a decree against the 1st plaintiff , purchased the land in suit in execution of a decree through a court sale. On 13th June , 1958 the sale was confirmed. In 1966 the first plaintiff filed a suit for redemption alleging that the deed was a mortgage by way of conditional sale and that the mortgage amount has been repaid by virtue of the rent collected . The 5th respondent was impleaded as a defendant ( the 5th defendant ) in the redemption suit . He pleaded that the deed was a deed of sale with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR758
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners-original accused are challenging the order dated August 20, 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed issuing process under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two petitioners.2. Respondent No. 2 complainant filed Criminal Case No. 22 of 1981 on March 25,1981 before the Judicial Magistrate, Jamkhed, claiming that the two accused committed the murder of her husband on February 13, 1981. On presentation of the complaint, the trial Magistrate by his order dated March 25,1981 directed the complainant to lead entire evidence on the next date. In the meanwhile the trial Magistrate also called for the report from the police. The report was to the effect that the deceased had committed suicide. On the next date of hearing, i.e. August 20,1981, the presiding Magistrate, who succeeded ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR391
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Originally the suit was by a landlord against a tenant for possession and other consequential relief. The defendant raised a contention that the tenancy was void being in violation of Clause 22 of the Rent Control Order. As a consequence to the plea raised in the written-statement, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint raising an alternate contention that in the event of discovery of tenancy to be void the decree should be passed on the basis of title. Relevant contentions were raised and the valuation of the suit was enhanced from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The said amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant but it came to be allowed and the plaint was returned for presentation tot he proper Court, namely, Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), which has the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit of the value of Rs. 50,000/- or more. The present revision is directed against the said order.2. Shri Mahajan, the learned Counsel for the applicant original defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)2ITD651(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on three grounds. The first ground is concerning his order upholding the rejection of the allowance under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of laboratory equipment worth Rs. 94,687 and a building worth Rs. 1,18,452. The facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee spent the following amounts on scientific research:3. Building under construction 1,18,452 ----------- The ITO enquired from the assessee whether the aforesaid assets were used by the assessee for the scientific research relating to the business of the assessee during the previous year. As regards the first item of Rs. 3,08,175 he was satisfied that the laboratory equipment was actually used during the year on scientific research. He, therefore, allowed the assessee's claim under Section 35. In respect of the balance of the expenditure, he rejected the assessee's claim solely on th...
Tag this Judgment!