Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Dharsey Keshavji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR509(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN183(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred to us for our determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal validly gifted a sum of Rs. 51,000 to his son, Kantilal ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest relatable to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 51,000 could be included in the total income of the assessee ?'2. Although the Tribunal has set out the facts at considered length and with somewhat lesser charity than usual in the statement of the case, the relevant facts are very short, as it is common ground that the only question which really arises is whether a valid gift can be made by a mere transfer entry in the books of account of partnership. We, therefore, propose to set out the facts very briefly.3. A property known as 'Suambhu Kutir' was purchased by three person, including the assessee's son, Kantilal. Kantilal paid his shar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Kisandas Goverdhandas Dave and C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)92; [1983]144ITR624(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN186(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. ACt, 1961. The questions referred to use for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 9.9987 being the amount of sales tax allocated by the assessee from his customers but no paid could be brought to tax as income for the assessment year 1968-69?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a from deriving income from Kirana business. In respect of the relevant proviso year to the assessment year 1968-69, with which we are concerned, in the separate seals tax account, there were credits of Rs. 20,445 a d debits of Rs. 10,458. The closing balance was shown at Rs. 9,9987 in the balance sheet. this shows that the total credits for sale tax allocated during the said year amounted to Rs. 20,445 whereas only Rs. 10,458 were paid to the Government on account of sales tax and the assessee retained the balance of Rs. 9,9987 in its hands. However, t...
Tag this Judgment!Nikanth Balppa Mangave Shop and anr. Vs. Raj and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom388
ORDER1. By this petition the challenge is to the order made by the civil judge, senior Division, Kolhapur, raising the attachment with regard to an amount of Rs.16,000/- to Rs. 17,000/- which was attached in execution of a decree passed in the suit, being special civil suit No. 206 of 1973. That decree reads as follows:-'Plaintiff's suit against defendants 1 to 6 is decreed in the sum of Rs. 93, 971.78 Ps. With future interest on Rs. 93, 871.78 Ps. At 6 % per annum from the date of this suit till the realisation of the entire amount herein. Defendants 1 to 6 jointly and severally shall pay all this amount to plaintiff firm by bearing its costs of this suit in addition to their own. Decree shall be drawn accordingly.'2. It is not in dispute that the amount that was attached was the deposit belonging to judgment-debtor No.4 and was available for attachment. After the attachment, the said judgment-debtor No.4 filed an objection which has been decided in his favour and attachment has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Mahadev Dhuru and ors. Vs. Vijaynath Moreshwar Dhuru and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom274; (1982)84BOMLR331; 1982MhLJ545
ORDER1. This suit concerns the partition of immovable property situate at Mahim, Bombay, belonging to a joint family. One Laxman, who died long back, left behind 3 sons. Mahadeo, one of his sons, dies in 1970 and left behind the first plaintiff, a son. The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff's wife and the third and fourth plaintiff's wife and the third and fourth plaintiff's wife and the third and fourth plaintiffs are their daughter. A second son, Moreshwar, died in 1962 leaving behind four sons and a widow. The widow died during the pendency of the suit. The son and their families are defendants, represented by Mr. Bariava, learned counsel. Moreshwar also left behind four daughters, who are defendants 14, 15, 16 and 17, Defendant 17 has not chosen to appear though she is represented. Against defendants 14, 15 and 16 the suit was dismissed upon the application of Mr. Phadkar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs. A third son of Laxman, Kesharinath, died in 1945 leaving behind a wid...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Maganlal Harjiwan Tambodia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1148; 1982MhLJ635
ORDERS.J. Deshpande, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this revision against the order of discharge passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, dated April 20. 1981.2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the prosecution in this case. The principal point which arises for consideration in this revision relates to the qualification of the Food Inspector, who investigated the case and launched the prosecution against the respondents-accused. Respondent-accused 6 is the firm and respondents 1 to 5 are its partners dealing in sale of spices.3. On Jan 4. 1979. Inspector S.K. Dolas who is P. W. 3 in this case seized certain samples in the presence of the panchas and launched the present prosecution against the respondents-accused for the contravention of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The record shows that one Yadav, Food Inspector has filed the complaint in the Court and the said Dolas P. W. 3 who was the Investigating Officer has not commenced...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Laxman Contractor Vs. Mrs. Jayshreeben Ramesh Contractor and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR774; 1982MhLJ352
ORDER1. An order of maintenance passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Bombay, on 12th of May 1981 is challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was the opponent in the application which was tried as Case No. 135/N of 1980 filed by the respondent for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. There were several dates on which the case had been adjourned from time to time. On 6th of May 1981 the respondent filed an affidavit in which she put forth her case including the purported ill-treatment given to her by the petitioner and the estimated income of the petitioner. She prayed in the said affidavit that the petitioner be ordered to pay Rs. 500/- per month, which is the maximum payable under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C. Relying upon this affidavit, the learned Magistrate passed the order referred to above by which he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshroa Bhauro Jadhav Vs. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1985Bom256; 1982(2)BomCR489; (1982)84BOMLR156
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Mali Wadgaon Village Panchayat. It happens to be a Group Village Panchayat of three villages, namely, Mali Wadgaon, Babhulgaon and Padalsa, named after the village of largest population. The inhabitants of the smaller two villages were dissatisfied with the working and wanted separate Village Panchayats. From 1971 onwards demands and representations were made to that effect.2. Section 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contemplates a panchayat for each village but section 4(1) thereof authorises the Government to declare any local area or group of, revenue villages as one village for this purpose and thereafter include or exclude any part of such area after consulting the (1) panchayat concerned and (2) the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad.3. The then members of the Panchayat passed an unanimous resolution on 2nd September 1975 demanding such separation. It was supporte...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Mulchand Soni Vs. Mainikchand Dhanraj Gugle and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom35; 1983(1)BomCR172; 1982MhLJ313
ORDER1. The present petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 780 of 1977 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar. That Court made an order on Nov. 21, 1980 issuing process to the Income-tax Officer at the behest of the defendants though issuance of such a process was objected to on behalf of the plaintiff. The said order made by the learned trial Judge was subjected to an application filed before the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, purporting to be u/s. 29(3) of the Bombay Rests, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter called 'the Rent Act'. The said Court dismissed the revision, holding that the same was incompetent. That order is under challenge in this Court and so also the order made by the trial Court issuing the process to the I. T. O.2. As far as the tenability of the revision is concerned, it is undoubtedly clear that the provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 29 of the Rent Act documents not provide for any such revisions. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Mahabir Prasad Saha and anr. Vs. Shyam Sunder Sevramdas Bidawata ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR13
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are a company who are exporters and importers, carrying on business of garments. Petitioner No. 1 is the son and petitioner No. 2 is the mother. Respondent No. 1 is also a partnership firm carrying on business of supplying certain textiles. 2. Both the firms carry on their business at Bombay. The respondent herein filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners have dishonoured certain cheques which were issued in regard to payments of certain goods which they had supplied to them. It was alleged in the complaint that there were 7 cheques in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- amounting to total of Rs. 1,75,000/-. These cheques were issued on different dates i.e. between the 10th February to 19th February, 1980. Except one cheque, the other cheques which were post-dated cheques were dishonoured and the respondent could not get any payment against these cheques. Therefore, he filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, B...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. M.P. Birla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR377(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question referred to us for our determination in this reference are as follows :Assessment year 1968-69 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income of Rs. 18,134 on 160 bonus shares of M/s. Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd. held by the assessee's wife, Smt. Shardadevi, is taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 64(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' andAssessment year 1969-70 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend income of Rs. 16,000 on 160 bonus shares of M/s. Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd. held by the assessee's wife, Smt. Shardadevi, is taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The present respondent is the executor of the will of R. D. Birla, the original responded who was the assessee. We propose to refer to the said R. D. Birla as 'the assessee'. Some t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »