Mumbai Court January 1983 Judgments
National Harbour Launch Service Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC388DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for stay filed by M/S. National Harbour Launch Service in connection with their appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs No. S-14-4-1097/80 PINT, dt. 1-9-82 confiscating inter alia the appellants launch valued at Rs. 40,000/-under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and giving them option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-in lieu of confiscation. Since the launch was released before the issue of the order of confiscation the appellants executed the bond with bank guarantee for Rs. 30,000/-. The Customs authorities have initiated action to recover Rs. 30,000/- from the guarantor. In the aforesaid circumstances, M/s. National Harbour Launch Service have filed the present application for stay of the recovery. During the course of oral,arguments, Shri Faizullabhoy has submitted that the recovery of the amount would cause undue hardship to the appellants and that the appellants can give an undertaking not to dispose of the m...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. S.S. Barodawala
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD186(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1967-68. The original assessment was completed on 23-3-1969. The assessment was reopened by the ITO under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as, according to the ITO, there was reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 1,88,242, being deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), read with Section 2(32), of the Act, escaped assessment. He brought the amount to tax in the reassessment.In appeals, this was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department has, therefore, come up in appeal.2. The only ground taken in the appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount cannot be considered as deemed dividend.3. The assessee is a shareholder in Zenith Tin Works (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). During the relevant accounting period, the assessee nad drawn substantial amounts from the company and the debit came to Rs. 1,88,242. This was the amount which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indumati V. Adya Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD349(Mum.)
1. The assessee-individual was the owner of flat Nos. 7 and 8 in 'Manjiri' of Makarand Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Under an agreement dated 11-9-1973, the assessee entered into a leave and licence agreement with the Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., according to which the assessee was to get a licence fee or compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of Rs. 800 per month and Rs. 200 per month for the garage attached to the premises. The assessee returned income from the house property at Rs. 840 computing it by taking the annual value of the property on the basis of the municipal ratable value. The ITO computed the income from house property at Rs. 8,821, taking the licence fee of Rs. 12,000 per annum as the rent received and, hence, the bona fide annual value. On appeal, the AAC upheld the ITO's order, holding incidentally that the provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), apply to the assessee's case. The present appeals are laid against the...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Limited Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC132(Bom)
Madon, C.J.1. The applicants, Bata India Limited, are registered as dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants carry on business in footwear. At the relevant time, entry 24 in Schedule A to the said Act and entry 21 in Schedule C to the said Act dealt with footwear. Under entry 24 in Schedule A footwear made by hand without using power at any stage when sold at a price not exceeding Rs. 15 per pair was exempted from tax. As the footwear sold by the applicants was not made by hand without use of power, entry 24 had no application to the case of the applicants. Entry 21 in Schedule C at the relevant time provided as follows :'Serial Description of goods Rate of Rate of No. sales tax. purchase tax. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. Footwear - (a) other than that specified Five paise Five paise in entry 24 in Schedule A, in the rupee. in the rupee. when sold at a price not exceeding Rs. 15 per pair; (b) other than that specified...
Tag this Judgment!B.B. Billimoria and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR618
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings started under the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'. The two petitioners together own a land bearing C.T.S. No. 82 and situated at Koregaon Park, Pune. That land measures 542809 sq. metres. Each of the petitioners filed a statement under section 6 of the Ceiling Act. Besides the aforesaid land, which is held by the petitioners jointly, each of the petitioners owns certain other property also. The first petitioner owns a flat in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society at Bombay. The area of the flat is 297.28 sq. metres. Bombay being in category A of Schedule 1 of the Act, for calculating the area in terms of category B, in which Pune is situated, the area has to be doubled. Accordingly, the area of the flat occupied by the first petitioner in Bombay should be taken to be 594.56 sq. metres.2. The second petitioner owns a residential flat...
Tag this Judgment!Satyavijay Commercial Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: [1982]137ITR20(Bom); [1984]55STC186(Bom)
ORDERMadon, C.J.1. This matter comes before me on a difference of opinion between Padhye and Mohta, JJ. The point on which the two learned Judges differed has not been stated by them in any order of reference, but it clearly emerges on a perusal of the respective judgments and has been set out in the judgment of Mohta, J., in the following words, namely, 'Whether different commercial goods manufactured out of raw material - cotton fabrics - are also included in entry No. 15 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.'2. Before dealing with this point, it will be convenient briefly to state the facts which have given rise to this difference of opinion. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business at Gondia. The petitioners' firm is registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'). The business of the petitioners consists of purchasing cotton canvas, cotton niwar, cotton chair cloth, chemical co...
Tag this Judgment!Eknath Kira Akhadkar and ors. Etc. Vs. Administrative Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom144
ORDER1. All these eight writ petitions arise out of the judgments passed by the Administrative Tribunal , dismissing appeals filed by the petitioners against Orders of eviction made by the Rent controller under Ss. 22(2)(a) or s. 32 (4) of the Goa, Adman and diu Buildings (Lease , Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 19968 (hereinafter called the Act for sake of brevity). Though the facts that led to said orders of eviction and judgment are not the same and, therefore, some of the grounds of attack offer in according with the peculiarities of each case, the main challenge is nevertheless common. It becomes , thus, appropriate and convenient to jointly dispose of all these petitions and accordingly of they will be death with by this single judgment.2. In the petition No. 165|75, the petitioners case is that, nor about 29th June, 1970, respondent 3,4 and 5 instituted in the court of the Rent controller, North Goa, proceedings for eviction of the petitioners from a house existing at Ribabdarab...
Tag this Judgment!Nasibdar Suba Fakir Vs. Adhia and Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: I(1984)ACC105; AIR1984Bom1; 1983(1)BomCR520; (1983)85BOMLR373; [1985]58CompCas449(Bom); ILR1984Bom1714; 1983MhLJ647
Shard Manohar, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is of quite some importance. It relatesto the inter action of the provisions of Section 95(1)(b), Motor Vehicles Act, (hereafter, the Act), & of Rule 118, Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules;and their impact on the liability of the Insurance Company for the death or bodily injury to the hirer of a goods vehicle when he is a passenger in the same vehicle.2. The Accidents Claim Tribunal has taken the view that when a person hires a goods vehicle for transport of of his goods and when he is a passenger on the vehicle, then the Insurance Policy taken by the owner of the goods vehicle need not cover the loss caused to such passenger by virtue of the goods vehicle need not cover the loss caused to such passenger by virtue of the negligence of his driver and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to such passenger for payment of compensation to him. We are required to examine the correctness of this view.3. The facts of the case are more or l...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. John Samuel Peters
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR297
Mohta, J.1. Samuel son of Charles Peters the original respondent) was working as a train examiner with the Central Railways. He was charge-sheeted for certain misconducts on October 25, 1952 and pending enquiry was suspended on December 13, 1952. By order dated August 22, 1953 he was removed from service with effect from August 26, 1953, He filed a civil suit for declaration that his removal from service was wrongful. He also claimed the relief of reinstatement and back wages. The civil suit which was filed on April 9, 1958 was decreed on June 29, 1960, His removal was held to be illegal. It was held that he was deemed to be in service. Claim for arrears of wages from August 26, 1953 to April 9, 1958 at Rs. 106 per month was computed at Rs. 5834 and decree for the said amount was passed. During the pendency of the suit, the order of removal from service was set aside, he was asked to resume duties by order dated May 17, 1958 and a fresh departmental enquiry was again started. The origi...
Tag this Judgment!Uday C. Nanavati Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD591(Mum.)
1. The assessee, an individual, is in employment of Advance Plastics (P.) Ltd., Dynamic Plastics (P.) Ltd., Nanavati Dies & Tools (P.) Ltd., and Nanavati Sales (P.) Ltd. The proceedings relate to his assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 for which the previous year ended on 31-10-1978. It is common ground that during the previous year, the assessee went on leave to Madhav Garh (Madhya Pradesh) and under the terms of the agreement with the above concerns, he was reimbursed to the extent of expenses amounting to Rs. 5,250, the details of which are as under: Rs. Rs. Train fare to Indore 870 Indore to Madhav Garh taxi fare 150 Madhav Garh to Indore taxi fare 150 Train fare to Bombay 870 2,040 Local conveyance 381 Hotel 2,750 Washing, Tips, etc. 79 5,250 2. The above amount of Rs. 5,250 was claimed as exempt under Section 10(5) of the Incoim-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). However, the ITO allowed exemption with regard to the reimbursement of all other expenses except the hotel charges...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »