Mumbai Court November 1983 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Kunverji Velji
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD510(Mum.)
1. We are concerned here with the estate of Smt. Purbai Velji Mulji.Shri Velji Mulji, the husband of the deceased, died sometime in 1919 leaving behind him his widow, i.e., the deceased in the present case, his son-Shri Kunverji Velji, the accountable person in this case and a daughter. Kunverji Mulji was aged seven years at that time. He was, thus, a minor for whom the natural guardian was his mother, i.e., the deceased. Shri Velji Mulji was a partner in the firm of Ghampshi Bhara & Co. The deceased was not a partner in the said firm. In 1929 she purchased certain properties stated to be from the assets of her husband. On 8-5-1934, the deceased executed a trust settlement. It was recited in the trust deed that she was the absolute owner of certain properties mentioned in the trust deed. On her death, the accountable person, viz., Shri Kunverji Velji Mulji, informed the Assistant Controller that the property under consideration was purchased by the deceased out of the assets left ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K.H. Industries and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT40(Bom); [1982]135ITR597a(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm and are carrying on business of manufacturing fan-guards for electric fans and supply them to various customers.2. The petitioners have employed over 30 workers and are not liable for payment of excise duty or to take out any licence because of the exemption available under Rules 8 and 174A of the Central Excise Rules and the notifications issued thereunder from time to time. In March 1979, an Inspector from the Central Excise Department visited the petitioners' factory and directed the petitioners to take out a licence in form L-4. The petitioners entered into correspondence and pointed out that their total clearances does not exceed Rs. 30 lakhs in aggregate, that the face value of the machinery of the petitioners did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs, and as both these conditions prescribed in the Notification dated March 1, 1979 are satisfied, the petitioners are eligible to concession in excise duty and are exempted from licensing control so long as...
Tag this Judgment!Madhao Soiru Laad Vs. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: [1984(48)FLR196]; (1984)ILLJ517Bom
1. The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 in August 1961 as Stenographer and was working in the office of respondent No. 1 at Bombay. On May 13, 1975, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Branch Office of respondent No. 1 at Madras and on November 24, 1975 the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from December 1, 1975 on the ground that sufficient work was not available.2. The petitioner was an active member of the 'Engineer Mazdoor Sabha' and the said Union filed complaint under S. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, at Bombay complaining that the employer Company had committed unfair labour practice under Item 1 of the Schedule IV to the Act in retrenching the petitioner. The complaint, inter alia recites that the petitioner was an active worker of the Union and the employer did not approve ...
Tag this Judgment!Eknath Radhkisan Bajaj Vs. Madhav Bhagwan Bhore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR516
R.A. Jahagirdar J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of the landlord who filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 349 of 1973, in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), at Ahmednagar for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. The group urged in support of the prayer for possession was among others, the failure of the petitioner to pay arrears of rent within one month from the service of the notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') The said notice is dated 6th of September, 1972 and was served upon the petitioner. In that notice, as in the plaint in the trial Court, several grounds were mentioned for seeking possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner. Since the trial Court has negatived two grounds and since the Appeal Court below did not touch the trial Court's findings on the same, it is not necessary for me to refer to those grounds.2. On 6th of Octob...
Tag this Judgment!indru Bhagwandas Hingorani and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1983
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR393
Sharad Manohar, J.1. After hearing both the learned Counsel. I was fully satisfied that the complaint filed by respondent No. 4 (hereinafter the complainant) was wholly devoid of any substance and it amounted to nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. I have, therefore, already passed an order making the Rule absolute and have quashed and set aside the entire proceedings arising out of Summary Case No. 4307 of 1982.2. It is unnecessary for me to mention the reasons for the order elaborately. It is enough to state the circumstances in which the complaint was filed by the complainant and the petition filed by the petitioners and the nature of the material brought on record by the petitioners in the petition which reveals the untenable character of the complaint.3. The petitioners carry on business of building construction and financing companies. As such builders they constructed a building called 'Madhuban' at Thane and the various flats of the said building were sold to various ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rachel David Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD175(Mum.)
1. This appeal is by the assessee. It is directed against the order dated 27-11-1982 passed by the AAC. By that order the appeal of the assessee against the order of the WTO was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time.2. The assessee was late Mrs. Rachel David. Her estate was represented by the executrix, Mrs. Gladys S. Koder, Mrs. Koder is resident of Cochin. The assessment year is 1977-78.3. The order of the assessment passed by the WTO was served on 29-3-1982 on the firm of S.S. Billimoria & Co., the chartered accountants. The said firm was representing the assessee before the taxing authorities. The last date for filing of appeal was 28-4-1982.4. On 28-4-1982, the said firm filed appeal before the AAC. The memorandum of appeal bore the signature of partner of the said firm for and on behalf of Mrs. Koder. The said memorandum did not bear the signature of Mrs. Koder.5. On 5-5-1982, the said firm filed the second memorandum of appeal with a covering letter. This memor...
Tag this Judgment!Third Income-tax Officer Vs. Ramanlal Vithaldas and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)8ITD120(Mum.)
1. This appeal is by the department. The assessee is a firm dealing in dry fruits. The assessment year is 1981-82. The dispute is about the head under which the income of Rs. 61,000 received by the assessee would be treated. This income had arisen from what is termed in the assessment order as 'reassignment of shop'. The assessee asserted that it was a long-term capital gain and should be assessed as such. The ITO rejected the said claim and held that it was an income from business and added it to the business income of the assessee.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the assessee and directed the ITO to treat the same as long-term capital gain. The department has now come in appeal before us.3. The only ground raised is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in treating the said income as long-term capital gain and not business income.4. The facts, as found by the ITO and recorded in the assessment order, arc as follows. The assessee was carrying on business in dry...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D.A. Irani Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD160(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee, an individual, relates to his assessment for the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee and his mother jointly owned a flat in 'Shanti Kutir', Bombay, which they sold with vacant possession during the previous year. The flat held an area of about 1,800 sq. ft. and was taken by his father, Dr. A.B. Irani, for residential purposes in the year 1962-63 on a monthly rent of Rs. 175.The flat was, thus in occupation of the assessee's father as tenant and after his death on 26-3-1974 in the occupation of the assessee and his widow-mother. In May 1974, the existing tenants of the building 'Shanti Kutir' formed a society and entered into an agreement with the landlords for the purchase of the building, The ownership of the building was transferred to the society in January 1976, as a result of which the assessee and his mother like all other tenants jointly paid Rs. 46,287 towards, the purchase price of the flat and became its owners. The flat has been sold by the...
Tag this Judgment!Meher and Meher Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT217(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as ship-chandlers and suppliers of stores to foreign going vessels and foreign diplomats. For the purpose of supplying goods to foreign going vessels and and diplomats, the petitioners import foreign goods, without payment of Import Duty under the saving contained in Para 11(d) of the Import Trade (Control) Order, 1955. The petitioners imported certain stocks of whisky and cigarettes during January 1978. The goods arrived in four consignments in Port of Bombay and the petitioners duty filed in the requisite bills of entry in respect of the four consignments. The last free days in respect of the two consignments was January 21, 1978 and for the remaining two consignments was January 23 and January 24, 1978 respectively.2. The staff of the Clearing and Forwarding Agents in Bombay Docks went on strike from January 20, 1978 and the strike was over on January 26, 1978. The petitioners claim that they could not clear the goods im...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Metal Industries Vs. R.B. Said and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT37(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm and are manufacturing aluminium strips out of aluminium wire rods in coil purchased from the open market. The petitioners are required under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to submit their classification list from time to time. The classification lists were duly approved and the petitioners used to remove the goods under 'Self Removal Scheme'. The petitioners submitted monthly statements in Form RT-12 showing therein excisable goods manufactured and the said statements were duly scrutinised and accepted. On May 29, 1970, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range No. III, Division V, Bombay, served show cause notice on the petitioners claiming that on verification of documents, it was found that the petitioners had cleared aluminium strips weighing 22,974.100 kg. from June 1, 1968 to December 31, 1969 and further quantities in subsequent period, on payment of duty at Rs. 500/- per metric tonne after setting off Rs. 950/- per metric...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »