Mumbai Court June 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, Poona Vs. Sandvik Asia Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)128; [1983]144ITR585(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN286(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee-company, M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd., has a factory located at Pimpri, Poona. the assessee has constructed roads inside the factory premises lending from the gate of the factory to various buildings and leading from one building to the other. The assessee claimed depreciation on these roads but the ITO rejected the claim of the assays.2. In the appeal file day the assessee, the AAC allowed the claim of the assessee on the bias that deprecation has been allowed for the earlier assessment year 1963-64. This view of the AAC wa challenged by the Department by an Appeal filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Before the Appellate Tribunal, in reply to the arguments on behalf of the Department, part from the contention that 'roads' were 'buildings' within the meaning of s. 32 of the I. T. Act, 1961, as the roads were within the factory premises connecting one production premises to another, an alternative contention was also raise that 'roads' were part and...
Hindurao Annasheb Patil Vs. Yeshwant Laxman Yadav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom60; 1983(1)BomCR106; 1982MhLJ794
1. This Second Appeal by the heirs of a deceased decree- holder is against the order of the learned District Judge, Sangli, dated 12-3-1980, dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Islampur, dated 13-9-1979 dismissing the decree-holder's Darkhast No. 39 (Ex. 23) for condoning the delay in depositing the amount in time under a decree for specific performance made in his favour in his suit being Suit No. 210 of 1960 for specific performance of agreement for sale of S. N. 273, village Bavachi, District Sangli, by the defendant in his favour.2. The plaintiff-decree-holder had filed the said suit against the Respondent /Defendant for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit land. On 15-1-1969 the Civil Court decreed the suit in plaintiff's favour, directing the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in court within a period of one month from the date of the decree and order the judgment-debtor-defend--and to execute the sale deed on the De...
Balu Parasu Magadum Vs. Hirabai Alias Anusuya Ramchandra Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR713
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. One Parasu had a son by name Rama who died in the year 1932 leaving behind his widow Bayabai. It is after the death of Rama that Parasu adopted one Balu who is the present appellant and the original defendant. There was an earlier litigation in the year 1950 when Rama's widow Bayabai filed a suit for maintenance against the present appellant Balu. That suit being No. 396 of 1950 resulted in Compromise in the year 1952 and under the terms of compromise a decree was passed, Bayabai was granted agricultural lands and a part of house in lieu of the maintenance. It is these lands that are the subject matter of the present proceedings. Under the said decree however, Bayabai was restricted in her right to alienate the said property or to burden it with any liability. In pursuance thereof Bayabai was to be in possession of the said land and was continued to be so till she died in the year 1971.2. Hirabai is the daughter of Bayabai and it is this Hirabai who filed Regular Suit...
Jayaram Krishnaji Gayakwad (Since Deceased) by His Heirs L.J. Gayakwad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR821
M.P. Kanade, J.1. The proceedings arise out of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). One Jayaram Krishnaji Gayakwad filed a return under section 12 of the Ceiling Act contending, inter alia, that there was a family petition on March 20, 1957 amongst the members of the joint family consisting of himself and his major four sons. In the said partition Jayaram Krishnaji Gayakwad was allotted 46 acres 39 gunthas of the land. The said partition is not disputed in this proceeding. Jayaram's wife Laxmibai's was allotted 4 acres 7 1/2 gunthas and she also acquired on area of 2 acres and 3 gunthas as her Stridhan. Therefore, her total holdings comes to 6 acres and 10 1/2 gunthas or so. The land held by Laxmibai the wife of Jayaram under the law can be calculated together and the total holdings thus comes 53 acres and odd gunthas. Jayaram died after filing the return and his heirs have filed several proceedings. Jayaram...
Sohoni (Smt.) Kantilal JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR319
D.M. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of Kantilal Jain who is detained by virtue of an order bearing No. S.P.L. 3(A)/PSA-0181/256 dated 6th January, 1982 passed by the Government in the purported exercise of its powers under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.2. The circumstances which led to; the detention of Kantilal Jain are narrated in para 1(a) of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows : 'On receipt of a secret information, Custom Officers maintained a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of Nagppada area from where the suspect was supposed to come with contraband wrist watches on 1-10-81. The informer was also with the Custom Officers. At about 7.35 p.m the informant pointed out the Scooter No. MMC-9878, with you driving it along with a pillion rider behind you who was holding two jute bags in his hands. At Cafe Sagar Junction your scooter started moving towards Maulana Azad Road, when two officers on a scooter follow your scooter and two officers followed i...
Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.V. Borkar, Superinten ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT338(Bom)
1. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range IV, Bombay Division, Bombay, issued a demand notice in the sum of Rs. 17,255.36 under rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of copper and copper alloy flats, bus bars or copper strips, having thickness between 9.53 mm to 10.00 mm, cleared by the petitioners during the period November 1, 1965 to November 30, 1971. The said demand notice, which was dated April 22, 1972, was subsequently confirmed on December 7, 1972. It was held that copper bus bars and copper strips of dimensions between 0.15 mm and upto 9.52 mm thickness were originally charged to duty as per orders then in force but in view of the revision in the I.S.I. standard coming into effect and applied on and from October 1, 1965, the definition of strips was changed. As per the said changed definition, rolled flat products or 0.16 mm and upto and including 10.00 mm thickness but of any width and generally not cut to length and usually in coil but may be flat or f...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. MustakhuseIn GulamhuseIn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Bom)123; [1983]143ITR951(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN61(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 are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income which accrued to the assessee in Daman (the Union Territory) cannot be included in the total income of the assessee for the purposes of determining the rate of tax under the provisions of the Act read which the provisions of the Taxation Concessions Order, 1964, for the year under reference ?'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee can challenge the levy of panel interest under section 139(1) and 217 of the Act in the appeal if it is filed against the order of assessment as a whole and that in the instant case the assessee having challenged the assessment order as a whole, was entitled in law to challenge t...
Universal Ferro and Allied Chemical Ltd. and Another Vs. P.G.K. Warrie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)208; [1983]143ITR959(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN5(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd., is a public limited company carrying on, inter alia, the business of manufacturing ferro, manganese. It has been, for the last several years, exporting ferromanganese in large quantities to different countries, incurring for the said purpose various expenses such as that of cartage and coolie charges, transportation, insurance, printing and stationery, postage, telegram, telephones and other general expenses.2. Another company, M/s. Eldee Ropes Ltd. (hereinafter 'Eldee'), had been exporting various types of wire ropes and had in that behalf and, during a period, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,31,560 which included, inter alia, BPT certificate charges and cartage and collie charges. For their previous year ending March 31, 1971 (assessment year 1971-72), Eldee claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 43,853 under s. 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act). The ITO disallowed the said claim. The AAC allowed Eldee...
Shobha Remesh Parekh (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR669
D.M. Rege, J.1. This is a petition for Habeas Corpus by the wife of a detenu who has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter called COFEPOSA Act).2. The detenu is carrying on business as a professional photographs and sells photographic equipments to his customers. On 7th November, 1981 he was served with an order of detention dated 4th November, 1981 by the Government of Maharashtra alleging that with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaged in concealing and keeping smuggled goods, it was necessary to detain the detenu under section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (52 of 1974). On the same day i.e. on 7th November, 1981 he was served with another order directing him to be detained for one week in Bombay Central Prison and thereafter at Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. On the same day he was also served with the grounds of detention.3. The detenu's r...
Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR447; 1983MhLJ550
D.P. Mandon, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Aggarwal whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellants on the Original Side of this High Court. 2. The controversy between the parties lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants are a public company limited by shares and inter alia were manufacturing at the relevant time and are still manufacturing engineering files. The department of the appellants manufacturing engineering files is known as 'J.K. Engineer's Files Division'. These files are sold under the brand names 'sunflower', 'Sher' and 'Rock'. It appears from the averments made in the petition, against the order from which the present appeal has been filed, that by a letter dated February 21, 1973 the Joint Director of Investigation appointed under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 't...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »