Mumbai Court May 1982 Judgments
Prabhavati Ishwardas Vs. His. Highness Maharaj Dhiraj Mirza Maharao Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR143
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition by the original defendant is preferred against the concurrent decree passed by the two courts below in favour of the plaintiff in his suit for arrears and possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. Claim for possession was based on ground that the petitioner defendant had remained in arrears of rent for a period of more than six month. Notice of demand under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was served upon the defendant. Even so the arrears were not paid nor any reply sent. No tender was made nor any dispute raised nor any standard rent application filed. Suit was filed in the year 1966. One is now in 1982. At one stage the said suit was decreed ex parte due to default of the defendant. The ex parte order was, however, subsequently set aside and the suit was tried and heard on merits. On merits also the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Defendant's against the said decree failed. Hence this petition.3. Hearing ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Kamla Knitting Works Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD1108(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 10-4-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals), relating to the assessment year 1976-77 the previous year of which ended on 30-9-1975.2. The assessee is a company established in the year ended 30-9-1968 for the manufacture and sale of knitted clothes. It did not claim relief under Section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), during the first assessment year, namely, 1969-70, because the capital employed by the assessee out of its own funds during that year was a negative figure. In the second assessment year 1970-71 also, the assessee did not claim relief under Section 80J for the same reason. In the subsequent three assessment years, namely, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the capital employed by it became positive, so that it was entitled to relief under Section 80J at a certain percentage of such capital. Even so, the assessee did not claim relief under Section 80J during these three years, because the gross tot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›