Mumbai Court March 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Patel Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)1; [1984]145ITR614(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue in which the question of law which has been referred to the High Court for opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to have extra payment made by it to the estate of the deceased partner towards his share in the appreciation in the value of the shares added to the original cost of the shares for the purposes of computation of capital gains arising on the sale of those shares ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Patel Brothers, Bombay, is a partnership firm constituted under a partnership deed dated October 18,1949. Initially there were three partners who were brothers, viz., Sorab Pestonji Patel, Jehangir Pestonji Patel and Shavak Pestonji Patel. The partnership deed specifically provided that the death or retirement of any partner shall not dissolve the partnership and the partnership shall continue with the remaining partners.3. Sorab Pestonji Patel died on 23rd...
Bhalchandra Vishweshwar Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom436; 1983MhLJ1014
ORDER1. The petitioner is the son of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, that is to say, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the petitioner respectively. The petitioner filed a separate return under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act and the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal registered Ceiling Case No. 163/75-76. The petitioner's father viz. Respondent No. 2 also filed separate return on the basis of which Ceiling Enquiry Case No. 277/75-76 was registered. In both the returns. the landholders had contended that as a result of family partition effected on 25-2-1970 certain properties fell to the share of the petitioner Bhalachandra. while certain other properties fell to the share of his father -- respondent No. 2. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, however, instead of deciding the cases separately thought it necessary to amalgamate both the proceedings since the partition prior to 26-9-1970 as alleged was not by a registered document. After holding the enquiry into both the re...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas215(Bom); 1983MhLJ443
Bharucha, J.1. This is an appeal against of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay rejecting the application of the appellants to direct by an award the owners the owners of the vehicle concerned, the opposite parties to the application and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before us, to pay to the appellants the sum of Rs. 1,88,125 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from March 20, 1978, till payment.2. On April 14, 1969, an accident took place at Bombay involving a vehicle owned by the respondents. On Balkrishna Nayan (respondent No. 1) was injured in the accident. He filed before the Tribunal, application No. 727 of 1969, against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for compensation. There appellant were jointed as insurers of the vehicle. On December 12, 1974, the Tribunal made an award directing respondents Nos. 2 to 3 and the appellant pay to Dr. Nayan the sum of Rs. 1,43,400 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim till ...
Dinkar Ramchandra Honale and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR468
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs against the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 2357 of 1981 on 1st of May, 1981 in L.C. Suit no. 2672 of 1981, dated 18th of August, 1981 dismissing the said notice of motion is an admitted position that the present appeal has been filed under order 43 read with section 104 of the Code Civil Procedure.2. In the suit plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the disputed land. It is an admitted position that in the Town Planning Scheme the land in dispute was given plot No. 1215 and was allotted to one Peter Louis who in his turn assigned it to M/s. Sanghi Motors Ltd. M/s. Sanghi Motors Limited and Shri Loise filed a petition before this Hon'able Court against the Bombay Municipal Corporation bearing Misc. Petition No. 906 of 1972 wherein a statement was made on behalf of the Corporation before the High Court that they will take immediate steps to stop the nonconforming...
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR161; 1982MhLJ617
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition petitioner Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a trade union, has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay dated January 7, 1982 refusing to grant ad interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the original complaint.2. The petitioner union filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the respondents alleging that they have committed unfair labour practices enumerated in the complaint. The first unfair labour practice alleged is that the petitioner union which is representing majority of the workmen in the head office of the first respondent company had started negotiations with the respondents on the charter of demands. These negotiations went on for some time and while the union was endeavouring to bring about the settlement, the respondent company adopted the policy which ultimately resulted in refusal to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Neo Pharma Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Bom)223; [1982]137ITR879(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN218(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (refereed to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The facts found are to the effect that the assessee is a company in corporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The assessee-company was incorporated on 9th March, 1950, mainly with the object of engaging itself in the business of manufacturing and processing pharmaceuticals. To achieve this object, the assessee entered into a loan-license agreement with another company called Pharmed Private Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as 'Pharmed') to make available to the assessee their premises, plant, machinery and the services of the staff such as chemists and labourers to carry on manufacturing activities for and on behalf of the assessee. In respect of these services, the assessee agreed to pay to Pharmed a charge at a fixed rate, which was inclusive of Pharmed's share of profits. It is recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the admitted positi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Popular Metal Works an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)216; [1983]142ITR361(Bom); [1982]10TAXMAN120(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. In the accounting year 1966-67 for which the corresponding assessment year was 1967-68, the assessee-firm, which is a manufacturing concern, had indented for import of 2,592 ingots of fire refined copper from the British Metal corporation Ltd, England. The goods were dispatched to the assessee by S.S. City of Pretoria and the invoice dated 3rd August, 1965, showed the value of the goods at pound 14,732-10-5. The documents including the bill of exchange were presented to the assessee through the Canara Bank Ltd., Bombay, for payment. They were honoured for Rs. 1,98,696.63 and were placed with the bank2. When in the course of transit the goods reached Karachi Port they were discharged between 6th September and 3rd October, 1965, by the order of the Govt. of Pakistan, who, on 21st September, 1965, served a writ on the carrying vessel in an action in prize instituted on 20th September, 1965, in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi (prize jurisdiction).3. The assessee h...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Ralliwolf Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)79; [1983]143ITR720(Bom); [1983]14TAXMAN3(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of 3,625 shares in the Indian company, Ralliwolf Ltd., of Rs. 100 each, issued to the non-resident assessee in consideration of supplying the drawings and information is of capital nature or of revenue nature ?'2. The assessee in this case is a non-resident company, Wolf Electric Tools (Holdings) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Wolf company. The Wolf company was mainly concerned with the manufacture of electric power tools. It had evolved various production methods and a series of drawings, jigs, processes and Schedules of manufacture, It had extensive export trade and its export trade with India was mainly carried on through two agents in Bombay and Calcutta, since before 1933. In 1950 the sole agency of the Wolf company in India was taken over by Rallis India Ltd. (he...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Smt. Kamlaben N. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)315; [1982]138ITR579(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN89(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty leviable under section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the assessee was to be quantified with reference to the gross tax as also reduced by self-assessment tax, if any, under section 140A of the Act, it being conceded by the Revenue at the time of the hearing of the appeals that the gross tax was to be reduced by the advance tax and the tax deducted at source ?'2. In view of the very limited controversy before us, we propose to summarise the relevant facts in so far as they pertained to that controversy. The assessment years are 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessee failed to furnish returns of her income in accordance with the provisions of s. 139(1) o...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. R.D. Sharma and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)223; [1982]137ITR333(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN137(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee carries on the business of construction as military contractors. In the assessment years 1967-68, in computing the net profit, the assessee took into account a sum of Rs. 30,800 being the penalty leviable by Garrison Engineer, Dehu Road, for the non-completion of a word within the stipulated time. This amount was held not to be a deduction item of expenditure by the ITO as well as by the AAC2. The Tribunal, in the appeal by the assessee, referred to condition No. 50 in the M.E.S. contract in which the penalty for delay in execution of the contract was described as compensation payable to the M.E.S. for the contractor's failure to complete the word and clear the site on or before the dates prescribed for the said completion. The amount of compensation was to be adjusted and set off against any sum payable to the contractor either in the same contract or in other contracts. Having found that the notices seeking to levy penalty were served on the assessee and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »