Mumbai Court April 1982 Judgments
B.R. Tupkari Vs. Sushilabai P. Chikate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR719; (1982)84BOMLR376; 1983MhLJ62
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by a tenant against a decree for eviction passed by the lower Appellate Court, setting aside the trial Court's decree of dismissal of the suit.2. The error committed by the lower Appellate Court is of gross and patent character. I have no other alternative but to quash the said Court's decree and restore the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are very few :---The house in which the suit premises are situate belongs to the present respondent No. 1, who is hereinafter referred as the plaintiff. She herself resides in the said house in three rooms with her husband, who was a Lecturer or Professor in a college. He retired from the service in 1970. He has a son who admittedly, has been established in Pune as an Engineer, having his own accommodation there. There is no dispute that from the rear 1970, at least, the plaintiff has been in occupation of three rooms in...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Sanwarmal Pavankumar (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD501(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue and the only point that arises in this appeal is relating to the charging of interest under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Before going into the contentions regarding the chargeability of interest, we will have to dispose of the first ground raised by the revenue that the appeal itself was wrongly entertained by the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the contention of the learned departmental representative, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have entertained the appeal relating to the charging of interest under Section 217 as there is no specific provision for filing the appeal under Section 246 of the Act.But this contention appears to be without any substance, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Daimler Benz A.G. [1977] 108 ITR 961 (FB). It was held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court that if the assessee denies the liability to pay interest, the appeal lies. In this case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V. Gore and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Bom)110; [1983]143ITR922(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessee-firm is doing wholesale business in ' kirana ' (grains and provisions). It is a partnership firm having five partners. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1970-71, In that year, one of the partners of the firm, Lalchand Khanduram, was carrying a castle balance of the firm amounting to Rs. 20,000 from the shop to his home for safe custody at night, on his scooter. The bag containing the amount accidentally fell off the scooter and was lost. A police complaint was lodged but the money-bag was not found. The assessee has claimed the amount as a business loss. The ITO negatived the assessee's claim on the ground that the cash was not the stock-in-trade of the assessee. This order was confirmed by the A AC. The Tribunal, how-ever, held that the assessee-firm was required to keep large cash for the purposes of its business and hence the loss in question was incidental to the business of the assessee and should be allowed. It passed an order accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Hides and Skins Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)229; [1983]142ITR175(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN51(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessees are a partnership firm dealing in purchase and sale of hides and skins. The assessments which are in dispute relate to assessment yeas 1967-68 and 1968-69. From the books of account produced by the assessee for the relevant years it was noticed that for the assessment year 1967-68 the assessee had collected sales tax of Rs. 25,213, out of which it had paid sales tax amounting to Rs. 13,538. There remained with the assessee the balance amount Rs. 11,675. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee collected sales tax amounting to Rs. 35,690, out of which it paid sales tax amounting to Rs. 15,974. There remained with the assessee the balance amount of Rs. 19,716. The assessee showed these amounts in a separate sales tax account and did not bring these amounts into its profit and loss account.2. The ITO treated these two amounts of Rs. 11,675 and Rs. 19,716 as income of the assessee for the two relevant years. The view taken by the ITO was upheld by th...
Tag this Judgment!Laltaprasad Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)330; [1983]143ITR924(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN78(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'). The question referred to us for our determination under the reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the Income-tax Officer records, in the course of the assessment order, that notice for penalty proceedings should be issued to the assessee and all further action thereafter is taken by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The assessee earned in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, interest of Rs. 4,757 from the money deposited with one Gwalior Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. In the return for the said assessment year, which was field on March 17, 1962, this income was not disclosed and even in the revised return field on November 2, 1965, it was no...
Tag this Judgment!Nilesh Construction Company and anr. Vs. Gangubai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom491; 1982(1)BomCR577; 1982MhLJ664
Chandurkar, J.1. This appeal by defendants Nos.3 and 4 is is directed against the order made by Kania, J. On 11th Mar., 1982 dismissing the Notice of motion taken out by the appellants for vacating an order of interim injunction made by modi, J. On 13th April , 1981. The contesting respondents Nos.1 to 5 have filed a suit on the Original side of this court asking for a permanent injunction preventing the appellants from trespassing upon or entering the lands in question; from dispossessing the plaintiffs or any of them of the said lands or any of them of the said lands or any part thereof; from constructing any structure or structures on the said lands or any part thereof and from prevening, obstructing or interfering in any manner with the exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the said lands or any portion thereof by the plaintiffs. It is not necessary to go into the various allegations made in the plaint on which the plaintiffs claim a right to continue in possession of the land...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Universal Textiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD195(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the order passed by the ITO under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is an Indian industrial company in which public is not substantially interested. Further, it is not a subsidiary of such a company. Its income for the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 22,62,445, after giving effect to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Deducting therefrom, the income-tax and surtax liability of Rs. 16,71,791, the company had distributable profits of Rs. 5,90,654.Since the company failed to distribute any dividend within the statutory time limit of 12 months after the close of the accounting period, i.e., 30-4-1975, the ITO called upon the assessee to show cause why additional tax should not be levied on the company under Section 104. The assessee explained that the assessee was required to shift the factory and office compulsorily to some other premises for wh...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR724; (1982)84BOMLR298; 1982MhLJ871
Rege, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application has come up before this Full Bench on a Reference by the Division Bench (Dharmadhikari and Puranik, JJ.) since on the question involved in this application, it disagreed with the view taken by this Court in its decision by earlier Division Bench (Shah and Kanade, JJ.) in the case of Bajirao v. Tolanbai 1979 Mh LJ 693 : and thought the same required reconsideration.2. The question involved, shortly, was :- Whether a Hindu woman, whose marriage was null and void under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by reason of contravention of Section 5(i) of the said Act, viz. the person with whom she had undergone a marriage had a wife living at the time of the said marriage, was entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure from such a person on the basis that she was his wife.3. Few basic facts, not in dispute are :- The marriage of the petitioner - Yamunabai - with the respondent No. 1 was performed on 16-6-1...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhadas Vithaldas Vs. Mahant P. Krishnanandgiri Goswamy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR593
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Both these writ petitions arise out of the same suit filed by the plaintiff, who is the contesting respondent before me. Hence they are being disposed off by this common judgment.What follows is the chronological statement of fact. Wherever there is some dispute about the fact, but I find the same to be fairly established, I will give an indication in that behalf at the appropriate place.2. For the sake of convenience, the fact will be stated with reference to Special Civil Application No. 102/73 and the parties will be referred to with reference to their description in the trial Court, that is to say, as plaintiff, defendant No. 1 etc.,(a) The petition arises out of an eviction decree passed against the defendants under the Bombay Rent Act. The suit premises consist of an open plot of land, C.T.S. No. 454, Somwar Peth, Pune. The four sides of the plot of land are of different measurements. On the date of the suit one side was 130', second side was 138', the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay V Vs. Shah Construction C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Bom)245; [1983]142ITR697(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessees in this reference are Shah Construction Co. Ltd., Bombay. The reference relates to assessment year 1964-65. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of constructing dams, bridges, buildings and other construction work. It is an engineering company and it work is mainly done with the extensive aid of machinery.2. The assessee had a flat in a building known as 'Khetan Estate' in Bombay. On or about 29th May 1943, the State of Bombay granted a lease in respect of an open plot of land, on which Khetan Estate stands now, in favour of Kanji Property Ltd. for the construction of a building. Kanji Property Ltd. assigned this lease in favour of one Khetan on 6th November, 1950. Khetan in turned formed a company called 'Khetan Estate Ltd.' The said company completed construction of the building on the said plot of land by the 19th September, 1952. The assessee-company is one of the shareholders of Khetan Estate Ltd., and a flat in the said building has b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »