Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)28CTR(Bom)252; [1982]137ITR339(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN14(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s, 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee-company owned a building known as 'Bombay House' at Bruce Street, Bombay. The said building was constructed in 1920 and since that time was let out to different persons office. In 1949, the assessee air-conditioned the whole building by installing an air-conditioning plant of the capacity of 50 to 60 tons at considerable cost. At that time the assessee also constructed an auditorium in the basement of the said building at a considerable cost and provided services therein like the use of a film projector, a tape-recorder, a microphone, a canteen and so on. The assessee employed a staff about 25 persons, including technicians for the maintenance of the air-conditioning plant. there was also staff to look after the maintenance of the auditorium and the maintenance of the machinery therein and servicing the said machiner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom125; 1982(1)BomCR273
ORDER1. This constitutional action stands in a class by itself. Sut generis, if one may say so. The petitioner, one R. J. Mehra, a trade union leader, has moved this Court by this unusual action under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 1 , Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpand, is the learned Chief Justice of this High Court and the other two respondents. Mr. Justice B. A Masodkar and Mr. Justice R. L. Aggarwal, are the learned sitting Judges of this High Court. Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel Miss Indira Jaising in support of this petition were heard in externso. A speaking order was requested. There being precedents of different Courts on speaking orders st the admission stage. I proceed to give one here.2. Initially to summarize the averments:In Oct., 1980 a trust vix., Indira Gandhi Pratibha pratisthan Trust was set up by Mr. A. R, Antulay, till recently the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Mr. A. R. Antulay is the principle trustees thereof and Mr. Justice B. A. Masodkar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR100
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This group of 13 appeals raise a common question of law as to the scope of Section 458-A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and can, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Official Liquidator is the appellant in all these appeals. Respondents in all these appeals are the debtors of Alcock Ashdown Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). The Company claims this amount for the repair works of the vessel carried on in 1971 at the instance of the debtors. An order for winding up of this Company was passed on December 13, 1972 in Company Petition No. 86 of 1971 dated August 24, 1971. The appellant was appointed as Liquidator therein.3. The State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') is one of the secured creditors of the Company, the book debts of the Company having been hypothecated amongst other therewith as security. The Bank filed a suit being Suit No. 426 of 1973 against the Official Liquidato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD668(Mum.)
1. The dispute in this appeal is about the admissibility of a sum of Rs. 52,252 as a bad debt or as a business loss in the assessment of the assessee for 1976-77. The corresponding previous year is the calendar year 1975. The bad debt arose in the account of Jaifabs Rayon Industries (P.) Ltd. The case of the department is that the claim is premature.2. The assessee sold goods to the debtor in 1974. Cheques received from the debtor were not realised. Jaifabs Textile Mills (P.) Ltd. took over Jaifabs Rayon Industries (P.) Ltd. The creditors of Jaifabs Textile Mills (P.) Ltd. forced it to go into liquidation and its affairs vested in the official liquidator. The assessee was an unsecured creditor but there were other secured creditors.3. Jaifabs Textile Mills (P.) Ltd., while opposing the application in the matter arising under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, proposed a scheme for settling its affairs and stated, inter alia, as below : If the proposed scheme is not approved, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1983]141ITR363(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN141(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The question that arises before us for our determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penal interest was not waived by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1963-64 ?'3. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :In the relevant assessment year 1963-64, in the assessment order served by the ITO on the assessee in respect of the said assessment year, there was no mention at all of the levy of penal interest. However, in the notice of demand penal interest was included. It is common ground that the basis on which penal interest could have been levied in this case was that the assessee failed to file an estimate of his income and pay tax on self-assessment on the basis of such assessment as required under s. 212(3) of the said Act. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR507
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Twenty three accused were initially charged before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakri for having committed an offence under sections 494 and 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. These accused were prosecuted by complainant Chhababai on the allegations that accused No. 1, her husband had contracted a second marriage with accused No. 2 on May 23, 1975 at village Balsane in sakri Taluka of Dhule District. The complaint was lodged on August 7, 1975. The trial Magistrate framed charges only against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 11 and 12. The complainant led the evidence of Vishnu Ratan (P.W. 2) and Paraji Vishwanath (P.W. 3) in support of her case in addition to examining herself at the trial. The defence of the accused was one of denial. The trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence, recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the accused on July 26, 1978. Being aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.2. Shri Desai, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD954(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by the department relate to the same assessee and so they are heard together and disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from commission and interest. The assessment years involved in these appeals are 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee followed the year ended 31st March as his previous year. Formerly, the assessee was assessed to income-tax at Goa up to and including the assessment year 1972-73. It appears that no assessments were made for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, and that the assessee shifted his residence to Bombay. Returns of income were filed before the ITO, Bombay, on 22-3-1978 declaring income of Rs. 14,310 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 7,616 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee did not maintain any books of accounts in respect of his commission business. The assessee filed profit and loss account and the balance sheet prepared from the bank accou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR337
S.C. Pratap, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 7 of 1980, Sessions Court, Nasik, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were convicted of offences punishable under section 302 and section 323 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. For the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34, they were sentenced to suffer like imprisonment and for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the said sentences were directed to run concurrently. The original accused No. 4 was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under section 341 and section 504 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. It is against their conviction and sentence under section 302 read with section 34 as also their conviction under section 323 read with section 34 that the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR408
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner-wife is challenging the legality of the judgment dated May 2, 1981 recorded by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar reversing the order dated May 19, 1980 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar awarding maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month from the date of the institution of the application to the wife. 2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner-wife. The petitioner married the respondent No. 1 in Gandharva form of the marriage in the year 1964. The Gandharva form of marriage was adopted as both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were divorces. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived together for about 15 years. In the year 1979, the petitioner claims that respondent No. 1 started having relations with his first wife Kanthabai to whom he had earlier given divorce. That relation led to the ill-treatment of the petitioner and she was driven out of the house. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR307
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner original accused is challenging the order of conviction dated May 17, 1980 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, imprisonment of 15 days.2. The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by judgment dated April 30, 1981. The prosecution case is that the accused is working as a driver in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and on May 9, 1976 he was driving the bus MRR 8027 from Sangli to Akluj. After leaving village Shivane, the accused drove the bus at a very fast speed and gave a dash to the guard stones and thereafter dashed against a tree. The result of the accident was that the passengers in the bus received injuries and the...
Tag this Judgment!