Mumbai Court July 1982 Judgments
First Income-tax Officer Vs. A.N. Mafatlal (Huf)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD631(Mum.)
1. For the assessment year 1974-75 the assessment was completed in this case on 27-3-1975. The assessee had returned income of Rs. 3,67,187 as long-term capital gains relating to an immovable property. The ITO accepted this figure as returned and this formed part of the assessed income for the year. The assessment order and demand notice relating to the above assessment was served on the assessee on 18-8-1975 and apparently, the assessee accepted the assessment order and there was no appeal filed. On 3-10-1980 the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and claiming to exclude the long-term capital gains originally included in the assessment. The request to condone the delay in filing the appeal was based, according to the assessee, on a news item in the Economic Times dated 19-3-1980 which reported a decision of the Bombay High Court decided on a writ petition in the case of Manutbhai A. Sheth v. N.D....
Tag this Judgment!Saikh Husenbi Jansaheb and ors. Vs. Sayyad Latif Sayyad Imam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR844
V.S. Kotwal, J. 1. Regular Civil Suit No. 830 of 1975 was filed by the present two respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ahmednagar against the petitioners herein for ejectment of a certain piece of land located in Survey No. 64, in cantonment area within the city limits of Ahmednagar. The said suit also pertains to recovery of rental arrears commencing from October 1, 1972.2. The suit obviously proceeded for sometime though on account of certain developments the further progress came to be arrested. The petitioners who are the defendants contested the suit on all counts, the foremost of which was that they questioned the title of the respondents-plaintiffs to the suit property and further made a specific contention that the said property belongs to a public trust which is known and styled as Shri Bava Bengali Dargah of Ahmednagar and, therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs had no authority or right to file the said suit. Relevant documents in support of, their...
Tag this Judgment!White Lily Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mukund Balkrishna Par ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR787
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners are a Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the society') and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are allottees of the flats. There are certain disputes between the parties in the Co-operative Court. In a dispute which was filed by the society against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being No. ABN/11670/2582 of 1978. The society claims certain amount in the sum of Rs. 1,97, 267-30 from the allottees i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for flats Nos. 27, 28 and 25. During the pendency of this dispute, the society obtained an injunction on May 7, 1979, which was made absolute after hearing the parties. By reason of this injunction respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were prevented from occupying the suit flats Nos. 27 and 28 and in respect of remaining flat No. 25 no order was sought.2. After this dispute was filed, a second dispute being Arbitration Case No. ABN/1/1014 or 1981 came to be filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the society claiming possession of suit flats a...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Hiraj Mining Industries and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom83
Parekh, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 16th June 1975 of the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division Ratnagiri, in Special Civil Suit No,. 8 of 1971, the appellant (the original plaintiff ) have preferred this appeals.2. The fact according to the Appellants are that the appellants are a partnership firm. That the properties mentioned in Schedule A and B to the plaint belong to one P. D. Nimbalkar (now deceased) and one J. Y. Nimbalkar. That respondent Nos. 3 (a) to (3) (f) and on J. Y. Nimbalkar were and are his legal heirs and representatives. That the said J. Y. Nimbalkar has 1/2 share in the said properties. That the Court of Wards being respondent No. 2 are in management of the share of J. Y. Nimbalkar. That Respondent No. 4 exercises the powers of the Court of Wards.3. It is the case of the appellant that they entered into two mining leases both dated 20th Oct. 1964 -- one with the said P. D.Nimbalkar (now deceased) being Exh. 184, and the other with respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Usman Mulani Vs. Tukaram Bhiwa Tevardekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR553
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This (Appeal No. 126 of 1977) is plaintiff's second appeal. He lost his suit in both the lower courts. Plot No. 218 admittedly belongs to one Shankar Ghate. Plaintiff claims to have purchased this plot in its entirety from Shankar Ghate under a sale-deed dated 17th August, 1959, Exh. 122. The sale-deed is not a registered document. The sale price purports to be Rs. 99/-. Admittedly, plaintiff is in possession of a portion of this plot bearing property No. 246. The dispute is about another portion of the property bearing No. 50. The plaintiff claims to be in possession and appears to have initiated some construction thereon. The defendant claims to be in possession of this portion. He also claims to have purchased this property under a sale-deed dated 22nd July, 1960, Exhibit 138. Remaining portion of Plot No. 218 is an open site and is not in dispute.2. The defendant denies plaintiff's title to the entire Plot No. 218. He also denies that the plaintiff was in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Bom)296; [1984]146ITR145(Bom); [1985]21TAXMAN290(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of grains, kirana, oil and so on. During the course of the assessment proceedings in respect of the aforesaid assessment year, the ITO, while scrutinising the books of account, noticed certain cash credited in various accounts. The assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the cash credit entries. The assessee stated that it was not in a position to produce the persons concerned to prove the genuineness of the credits. The ITO worked out the amount of such peak credits and assessed Rs. 10,590 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against this assessment. This assessment was followed by penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Notice was issued for levying penalty by the IAC. Before the IAC th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrao S/O. Punjaji Deshmukh Vs. Mugutrao S/O. Anandrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)84BOMLR410
Waikar, J.1. This revision application is filed by the original defendant against the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1977 remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision in the light of certain observations and directions given by him.2. Briefly, stated the facts are that the non-applicant had filed a suit for perpetual injunction and possession of one Gandhi site. A sketch was filed along with the plaint but the correctness of the same was questioned by the applicant (defendant) who had filed his own separate sketch. It appears that during evidence, the non-applicant admitted that the plaint's sketch was not correctly drawn and did not show the correct situations. The trial Court, therefore, had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title as per the plaint-map. In the first appeal that was preferred by the original plaintiff, the learned Assistant Judge set aside the judgment and decree o...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Muzumdar Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD33(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1977-78, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1977.2. The only ground raised in the appeal is that the AAC erred in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 15,000 as income from profession.3. The assessee was carrying on the profession of consulting engineer for over 40 years. Due to advancing age and also indifferent health, the assessee, on 1-4-1976, assigned his profession along with goodwill for Rs. 85,000 to one Shri A.D. Savardekar, who had been working with the assessee for some time. Out of the consideration of Rs. 85,000, Rs. 1,000 was in respect of furniture, fixtures and other articles. The balance amount of Rs. 84,000 was described as the price for the goodwill and name of the said business or profession, outstandings and other intangible rights in connection with the said business'. During the course of the assessment, the ITO bifurcated the sum of Rs. 84,000.He estimated the outstanding fees at Rs. 25,000 a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Amy F. Antia Vs. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)41; [1983]142ITR57(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN524(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The deceased, late K. F. Antia, was an Engineer in the employment of Messrs. M. N. Dastur & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Dastur & Co.') since 1960. He died in an air crash on 28th May, 1968. The main question which arose in the course of estate duty proceedings on his death was whether an amount of Rs. 68,400 which was payable on the death of the deceased in pursuance of a group insurance policy taken out by the employer, Dastur & Co., was liable to be included as a part of the property which passed on the death of the deceased.2. The employer, Dastur & Co., had taken a group insurance policy with the Universal Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Indian Mercantile Insurance Co. Ltd. together called as 'Combine' on the lives of the permanent members of the staff of Dastur & Company. The policy is annex. E and is described as 'personal accident (group) policy'. The employer, Dastur & Co., is described in the policy as the 'insured'. We shall, for th...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Ramakrishna Pandurang Barve and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom142; 1982(2)BomCR556; 1982MhLJ735
Masodkar, J.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for both parties, it appears to us that the appeal as filed is incompetent in view of the provisions of Court. XXX. R. 1 of the Civil P. C.2. The initial suit was filed by the present appellant against the partnership and the partnership was impleaded as defendant No. 1 while the partners were shown as defendants Nos. 2 to 5. As the issues indicate, there were different defences taken by different defendants and all the issues were tried and the trial Court decreed the claim against the firm and defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 4. The suit was however, dismissed against defendants Nos. 3 and 5.3. In the appeal against that dismissal, the partnership has not been impleaded nor has it been joined nor have the other defendants been joined or impleaded.4. It is an admitted position that the cause of action was for the recovery of the partnership debt and the liability of each of the defendants arose because of the partnership debt. The basi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »