Mumbai Court January 1983 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.
Dimitrios Paizis and ors. Vs. Motor Vessel nicos and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom178; (1983)85BOMLR250
ORDER1. I am directed by this learned Chief Justice to try the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. That I hereby do. To that end, I briefly state the pertinent facts, recording at the outset Mr. Meghani's insistence that it be clarified that his clients, namely the 6th and 7th defendants, do not admit the plaintiffs' allegations in the pleadings. Neither party opted to lead any evidence.2. The plaintiffs' case is as follows :--(A) Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are Greek Nationals and possessed the entire shareholding of the 2nd defendant-Company in respect of the 1st defendant vessel (referred to hereafter as 'the Vessel') of which 22 shares are held by the 1st plaintiff, 39 shares by the 2nd plaintiff and 39 shares by the 3rd plaintiff, making an aggregate of 100 shares in respect of the Vessel. The Vessel is registered in Panama and belongs to the 2nd defendant which is a foreign company organised under Greek Law. the 3rd defendant was the President/Director of Defendant No. 2-Company till hi...
Majas Land Development Corporation and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom188
ORDER1. The facts of this petitioner disclose a scant regard for the citizen's property.2. On 15th Jan. 1969 a notification was issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stating that 95,957 sq. yds. of land near Jogeshwari, of the petitioner ownership, was silkily to he need for public likely, namely, for the use by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. the 4th respondent . On 13th Jan. 1972. the land was acquired, a notification under S. 6 being issued. In Aug. and Oct. 1974 notice were issued under S. 9(3) and (4) of the Act. Hearing commenced in Mar. 1975 and, according to the affidavit of the respondent. the last date of hearing was 6th May 1977. On 12th Nov. 1979 the petitioner filed this petitioner asking that the state of Maharashtra, the 1st respondent, should the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act to the land and to forthwith public an award determining the compensation payable to the petitioner for the land.3. On 8th December 1979, an affidavit was...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. Nagpur Gas and Domestic Applian ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Bom)366; [1984]147ITR440(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN15(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee is partnership firm which originally consisted of three partners, namely, (1) T. A. Patel, (2) R. T. Patel and (3) M. T. Patel. Each partner had 1/3rd share in the profits and losses. T. A. Patel died on April 4, 1970. The accounting year of the partnership firm was the calendar year. The assessment years in question are 1971-72 to 1975-76. Under the deed of partnership, which has now need taken on record as annexure-D, the relevant clauses dealing with the effect of the death of one of the partners are clauses 4 and 5.2. Clause 4 of the partnership deed provides that the partnership is at will and that on the death or retirement of any partner, the partnership shall continue and the share of the partner so dying or retiring shall belong to his nominees, as specified in clause 5 of the deed, who shall be admitted to the partnership. T. A. Patel was the father of the two other partners. Clause 5 of the partnership deed expressly provides that the nominee of...
M.D. Lotlikar Vs. R.C. De Desouza, Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Bom)17; [1984]145ITR433(Bom); [1983]13TAXMAN303(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a director of a private limited company called Bhimjee & Company Pvt. Ltd. For the years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the company was assessed upon a best judgment basis under the provisions of s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the years 1964-65 the tax was determined to be Rs. 2,300 and interest in the sum of Rs. 1,169 was made payable. For the year 1965-66 Rs. 4,200 was determined to be the tax and interest in the sum of Rs. 2,045 was made payable. The company did not pay the tax. On 17th September, 1977, pursuant to a show-cause notice to the company's directors under s. 179 of the Act, the ITO passed an order holding, inter alia, the petitioner jointly and severally liable for the arrears of tax. The petitioner went in revision, which application was turned down on 2nd August, 1978.2. The petitioner challenges by this petition the application of s. 179 as it reads subsequent to the amendment thereof in 1975, to the tax of the company assessed prior to the said amendmen...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur Vs. Ramkrishna Ramnath Properties P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR742(Bom); 1984TAXLR39
Mohta, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the behest of the Revenue. The following three questions are referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of s. 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the instant case ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no capital gain taxable under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising to the assessee on the sale of various properties for the assessment years in question ?'2. However, Shri Joshi, the learned counsel of the Revenue, wants us to answer only question Nos. 2 and 3 as question No. 1 is of a very general nature and the answer depends e...
Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: [1985]156ITR422(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee at whose instance this reference has been made is a co-operative society which derives income from various activities such as business in grains, sugar, articles intended for agricultural use, letting of godowns, commission, property, interest and dividend. The assessee society had entered into an agreement with the Government of Maharashtra dated October 30, 1961. This agreement is annexure 'B' to the statement of the case.2. The preamble to the agreement recites that 'the Government had decided to appoint a sole distributor to store and distribute Ammonium Sulphate, Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate,......by obtaining supplies from the Central Fertiliser Pool or from the manufacturers in India, as the case may be, in the eight districts of Buldana, Akola, Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Chanda and Bhandara (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agency Area').' The assessee-society is described in the agreement as 'Distributor'. It is not necessary to refer in detai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)206; [1984]147ITR21(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN253(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred by the Tribunal are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) were not applicable to the instant case ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no capital gain taxable under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising to the assessee on the sale of property for the year under consideration ?'2. The assessee was one of the co-owners of a building known as 'Sandoz Building' at Bombay. During the assessment year 1974-75, the building was sold by all the co-owners to H. H. Dr. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Memorial Foundation, Bombay, for consideration of Rs. 35,00,000. The ITO, having taken the view that there was reason to believe that the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Ushabai S. Dhanwatay, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)198; [1984]147ITR455(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this reference was a co-owner of 'Crystal Building' bearing Plot No. 79 of Scheme No. 58 of Worli Estate of the municipal corporation of Greater Bombay. Her share was 3 1/2 annas in a rupee. By sale deed dated March 1, 1972, she sold one anna out of her share of 3 1/2 annas to her son Amrut in exchange for a house in Ramdaspeth at Nagpur, which was to be transferred in favour of the assess. The value of one anna share was determined by the assessee at Rs. 85,000 and the Ramdaspeth house which was to be transferred to the assessee was valued at Rs. 1,10,000. Thus, the assessee made a payment of Rs. 25,000 in cash to Amrut.2. The ITO got the Crystal Building valued by the District Valuation Officer and the market value as on March 31, 1972, was determined at Rs. 59,64,000. The value of the assessee's share of 3 1/2 annas came to Rs. 11,74,162. The value of one anna share came to Rs. 3,35,475.3. The ITO invoked the provisions of s. 52(1) and s. 52(2), but ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur Vs. Hasnat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Bom)190; [1984]147ITR509(Bom); [1983]14TAXMAN545(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The assessee in this reference which is made at the instance of the Revenue is M/s. Hasnate Burhaniyah Fidaiyah Wakf. The assessment years in question in this reference are 1966-67 to 1974-75. There are other references in respect of the same assessee, that is, Reference No. 68 of 1976, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62; W.T. Reference No. 5 of 1974, for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64; W.T. Reference No. 9 of 1981, for the assessment year 1957-58; and W.T. Reference No. 69 of 1977 also for the assessment is whether the assessment to wealth-tax was liable to be made under s. 21(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, or under s. 21(4) of the said Act. In this judgment we are dealing only with the questions which are referred in W.T. Reference No. 72 of 1977 and for the purpose of convenience we are answering other reference separately by separate orders, though the facts are identical and the document of wakf involved and which falls for consideration is the same ...
Vasant J. Sheth Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD453(Mum.)
1. The assessee is assessed as an individual. Shri Jagjiwan Ujemshi Mulji, the father of the assessee, died intestate on 5-7-1959. A sum of Rs. 4,000 was inherited by the assessee from his father. Treating this as the nucleus of the HUF consisting of himself, his wife and daughter, the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,000 from his personal current account with the Bank of India and claimed to throw this into the common hotchpotch of his alleged HUF. A declaration to this effect was also filed before the income-tax authorities. Subsequently on 23-3-1978, the assessee, his wife and his unmarried daughter as settlors and in their capacity as members of a HUF settled an amount of Rs. 1,000 and certain shares held by the assessee individually on a trust for the benefit of the assessee, his wife and his unmarried daughter, i.e., themselves. For the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the TTO did not accept the claim of the assessee that the income from the above assets were to be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »