Mumbai Court April 1982 Judgments
Padamsey Mulji Ginning and Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD92(Mum.)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee-company against the orders under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') passed by the Commissioner, Nasik. In these orders, the Commissioner had directed the ITO to include the income from interest amounting to Rs. 1,30,947. In another order, he had directed the ITO that he should also charge interest under Section 217 of the Act, while passing the consequential order in pursuance of the Commissioner's order under Section 263.2. The assessee is a private limited company. This company is holding controlling shares in two other private limited companies by the name of Lalji Ramji Ginning & Pressing Co. (P.) Ltd. ('Lalji') and Magnotape Co. (P.) Ltd. ('Magnotape'). The assessee-company holds 88 per cent of the shares in Magnotape. The holding-company had been advancing funds to Magnotape. We are concerned with the accounting year ended 30-6-1975. The accounts of Magnotape show advances received from the holding company total...
Tag this Judgment!income-Tax Officer Vs. Venilal'S Export House (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD552(Mum.)
1. The assessee-respondent is a private limited company. It was formed in November 1971 with six brothers as shareholders. Each of the brothers had 310 shares at the time of formation of the company. The business of the company consisted of mainly export of silk sarees and textiles and manufacture of special type of yarn. During the year 1974, the company started construction of a new textile processing division at Surat which was completed by the end of 1975. It appears that in the beginning of 1975 disputes between the brothers arose. There was practically a deadlock in the management and running of the business. A family friend was asked to arbitrate amongst the brothers and settle the disputes. It was decided by the arbitrator that four brothers, viz., S/Shri Mahesh, Dilip, Kirit and Satish, should go out of the company and dispose of the shares to the family members of the other two brothers, viz., S/Shri Kishore and Anil. In turn they were to take two divisions of the company. T...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Synthetics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD176(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the assessee objects to the confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) of a disallowance of Rs. 20,287 out of the general charges, restriction of relief under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to only 50 per cent of the salary of the staff engaged in the export business and confirmation of a disallowance of Rs. 1,89,540, paid as bonus, made by the ITO.2. We first deal with the ground relating to the rejection of the assessee's claim under bonus. The assessee entered into an agreement with its workmen on 29-4-1974. According to this agreement, the assessee was to pay bonus, up to 20 per cent of the wages, for the financial years 1972-73 to 1975-76. According to the assessee, 20 per cent of the wages paid to the permanent, daily-rated and monthly-rated workmen came to Rs. 1,89,540, in respect of the financial year 1975-76, relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. When it filed a return on 8-10-1976, it did not claim this amount as a liability. Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Dadanbai W/O Premchand Vs. Hardas Premchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR906
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 9th March, 1982 passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1979 filed on Original Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1966.2. The petitioner herein had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1966 for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of her deceased husband Premchand. This was under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. On that petition, the following order was passed by the Court on 27th January, 1967 :---'Succession certificate be issued in the name of the applicant on furnishing security to the extent of shares of minors on payment of Court fees. Costs to come out of the estates of the deceased.'3. Subsequently, in the year 1979, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No. 32 of 1979 stating, inter alia, that all those who were minors at the time of the 1966 application supra had then become majors. It wa...
Tag this Judgment!imam Mohamed Pendhari Vs. Rahimatabai Allabaksha Pendhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR291
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff claims to be heir of one Mohamed. The said Mohamed died in the year 1949, leaving behind him the plaintiff-Inam Allabaksha, ancestor of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and daughter Chandhi-defendant No. 6. Admittedly, the suit properties are Inam lands and non-Inam lands. The Inams came to be abolish in the year 1955 under the provision of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The lands were ultimately regranted in favour of the son of Allabaksha, defendent No. 1 on 21-7-1971. The land appears to have been so regranted to the son of Allabaksha on the hypothesis that he was entitled to the same by rule of primogeniture and also by right of inheritance accured to him after the death of his father under rule of primogeniture, though the inam lands were held by Mohamed during his life time since the death of his ancestor. This suit was decreed by the trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mohammed and Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom443
Sawant, J. 1. These are five appeals against the learned single judge in five different miscellaneous petitions , under the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) . The appellants in appeals No 214 to 217 of 1979 were the members of the Defense Services and the appellants in appeal No 207 of 1979 are the heirs and the legal representatives of one M.K. Kapoor who was a member of the Defense Services . The premises which are the subject matter of the appeals were admittedly allotted by the Central Government to these members of the Defence Services because they were on its service and on the condition that they would vacate the premise when they retire from service. However, in spite of their retirement , they refused to vacate the same . Hence under the Act the proceedings for evicting them were started against them before the Estate Officer. In the proceedings they took the plea that the premises in question were not ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavdas Dwarkadas Vs. Jugal Kishore Saraf
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom20
ORDER1. The present petitioner is filed by the petitioner who is the owner of the suit premises which consist of a building at Walkeshwar. The application for defendants ejectment filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act has been rejected by trial Court in the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant such application in view of an order in certain previous proceeding between the parties. The correctness of the said view is challenged in these proceedings.2. The fact relevant for the purpose of this judgment are the following:--The flat in question belongs to the present petitioner and admittedly he gave the same on leave and licence to the defendants in the year 1959. The amount of compensation fixed was Rs. 531/-. It has been contended before me that the said amount of Rs. 531/- was not only for the premises but also for furniture because it was a furnished flat which was given on leave and licence basis to the defendants. This fact is stoutly denied b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. India Automobiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)251; [1983]143ITR774(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN111(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').2. The question referred to us for our determination in this reference is as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the penalty imposable on the assessee (registered firm) under section 271(1)(a) read with section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67, the Tribunal was justified in so construing section 271(2) as to allow deduction under section 280-O of the amount of annuity deposit which the assessee might have paid if it were an unregistered firm when, in fact, no annuity deposit had been paid by it ?'3. The assessee is a firm registered under the I.T. Act and carries on business at Kolhapur. The assessee was required to file its returns of income for assessment year 1966-67 by September 30, 1966, under s. 139(1) of the said Act. However, the said return was filed on February 17, 1969, i.e., aft...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikamsingh Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR352; [1982]134ITR310a(Bom); (1982)IILLJ304Bom
Mohta, J.1. In this petition we are called upon to decide the right of a probationer. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Engineer (Civil) on 16-11-1976 by the first respondent a Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. The second respondent is the Vice Chairman and General Manager of the first respondent. Admittedly, this appointment was on a probation for one year and subject to the Bombay State Transport Employees' Service Regulations issued under S. 45 of the aforesaid Act.2. The appointment order fixes the pay scales and the relevant portion of it reads as under :'On his appointment as Deputy Engineer (Civil). Shri Sapkal will be on probation for period of one year from the date he took over the charge of the post of the post of Deputy Engineer (Civil). His services, if not required are liable to be terminated without notice during or at the end of the probationary period. Shri Sapkal will be governed by B.S.T. Ex. Regulations as amended ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrao Dattaji Dhanwatey and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr. and S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1984Bom181; (1983)85BOMLR56; ILR1983Bom1222
Ginwala, J.1. The petitioner who are two the 8 partners of a firm which inter alia carries on the business of Printing and Lithography at Nagpur in the name and style of 'M/s Shic Raj Fine Arts Litho works, subbahs Road, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to the Undertaking) challenge the order passed by the Central Government (Respondent No.1) on 23-8-1989 under Section 18Aa(1)(b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the I.d.r. Act) authorising the Development corporation of Vidarbha Ltd. (respondent No. 2) )(hereinafter referred top as the authorised person) to take over ther management of the said Industrial Undertaking for a period of three years as also the order passed by it on 29-8-1980 under Section 18FB of the I.D.r. Act suspending all contracts etc. to which the said undertaking all is a party of for a period of one year. The remaining six partners have come on record as interveners disputing the locus standi of the petitioners ot mai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »