Mumbai Court February 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.
Arlem Breweries Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC172(Bom)
Rege, J.1. These are six sales tax references in respect of the sales tax assessment of the petitioners' company pertaining to the financial years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, two for each year, one being under the Central Sales Tax Act and the other under the Goa, Daman and Diu Sales Tax Act, 1964.2. The applicants, M/s. Arlem Breweries Ltd., are the manufacturers of bottled beer. According to them during the said years they sold their said beer to the wholesalers on an understanding contained in the price list issued by them, from time to time. One of such price lists has been annexed by the petitioners to their application.3. For all the said years the Sales Tax Officer by his orders dated 30th March, 1974, in Reference Nos. 4 and 5 of 1979, dated 9th March, 1974, in References Nos. 6 and 7 of 1979 and dated 28th April, 1974, in References Nos. 8 and 9 of 1979, assessed the petitioners for sales tax on the total price of beer and the bottle on the basis of the sale being of bottled be...
Bhagirathprasad Jagannath Marda Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: 1989(24)LC255(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The order that I now pass is a corollary to the order passed on 21st January 1983 in Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982.2. In April 1981 the petitioner imported 150 cartons of glazing grease proof paper. On 26th October, 1981 the goods were confiscated by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for the reason that they were not imported in accordance with the Import Control Regulations. On 5th January, 1982 customs duty was assessed in respect of the said goods in the sum of Rs. 2,71,621/- and the same was paid by the petitioner. On 10th February, 1982 the goods were sold by the Port Trust authorities for non-payment of damages. The sale was pursuant to permission given in that behalf by the customs authorities. On 20th February, 1982 the goods were seized by the customs authorities.3. On 1st March, 1982 the 7th respondent herein, who was the transferee of the goods, filed a Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982, challenging the seizure. On 16th Marc...
S.V. Ghatalia Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD583(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31-7-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is an individual deriving income from profession as a Chartered Accountant. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1978-79. The year ending 31-3-1978 was the relevant previous year.2. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 3,393 out of the travelling expenses of Rs. 9,933 incurred by the assessee during the previous year under consideration was not justified. The ITO scrutinised the travelling expenses incurred by the assessee, and found that out of seventeen tours in all, there were excess payments in respect of eight tours; excess, in relation to the amounts laid down under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Section 37(3), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The amounts spent on these eight tours by the assessee came to Rs. 7,458.The ITO calculated the amount allowable under Rule 6D in respect of...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas To ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: [1983]52STC381(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondents in both these references, M/s. Gordhandas Tokersey are registered dealers under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondents filed two applications both dated 17th August, 1970, before the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the provisions of section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the determination of the correct rate of tax payable on the sales of sandalwood and sandalwood oil effected by the respondents under their invoices Nos. 1958 and 1850 dated 6th August, 1970 and 18th April, 1970, respectively. It was the contention of the respondents that sandalwood and sandalwood oil were governed by the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, however, held that sandalwood and sandalwood oil were perfumes within the meaning of that word in entry 19 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and were liable to tax accordingly. From these decisions the respondents...
The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and ors. Vs. P.G. Koranne and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom317; (1983)85BOMLR134
Madon C.J. 1. These three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the constitutionality of Section 73BB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIV of 1961) and of the Government Resolution No. CSL 1577/ 14599-15-C dated Sept. 13, 1977 issued by the Agriculture and Co-operation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. As the grounds of challenge in these petitions to the said section and the said Government Resolution are mostly the same, we have thought it convenient to dispose of these three petitions by a common judgment.2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1440 of 1981 are the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited and two of its members and shareholders. In Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1981 the Petitioners are the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited and two of its members and shareholders and in Writ Petition No. 120 of 1980 the petitioners are the Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited and one of its membe...
Hiralal Vithaldas Gujarathi and ors. Vs. Namdeo Mahadu Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR71
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, dated November 8, 1978 confirming the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kopargaon, in Regular Civil Suit No. 575 of 1972. This matter was referred by a Single Judge of this Court in view of the conflicting views in the two judgments of this Court as to the concept of the 'Landlord entitled to give ejectment notice', being 65 Bom.L.R. 15 and : AIR1976Bom417 , and therefore, this matter is placed before us for hearing and final disposal.2. Few facts leading to this petition are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a room of 8 khans on the ground floor of a building bearing C.S.T. No. 1694 at Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The building originally belonged to the late Vithaldas Vishnudas Gujrathi. He died on June 20, 1967, leaving behind three sons, the petitioner herein, and three married d...
Sitabai Ramnath Vaidya Vs. Shridhar Abajit Maind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR6
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of eviction passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division). Nasik dated February 28, 1979 and the order passed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, dated July 27, 1981. At the time of admission of this petition before a Single Judge of this Court it was observed that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench in view of the apparent conflict between the two decisions of this Court in (Special Civil Application No. 2021 of 1969 decided on March 12, 1974), (Hajarnavis, J.) and : AIR1977Bom344 (Aggarwal, J,). Accordingly the matter was placed before us for hearing and final disposal.2. Few facts leading to this writ petition are that the respondents was the owner of a house bearing Municipal House No. 1428, situated at Hundiwala Lane, Nasik and the petitioner was the tenant of a room admeasuring 12' x 10' on the second floor of the said house on payment of...
Mingoa Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR720
D.M. Rege, J.1. This writ petition is by a Company called Mingoa Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Dt. 1-3-1975, upholding the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Dt. 15-1-1974, who also confirmed the order of Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising) Dt. 22-1-1972, who held that certain machinery of petitioners viz. two units of Caterpillar D-9-G Crawler Tractor, with attachments viz. one dozer and one ripper, were covered under Item 72(b) of the Indian Customs Tariff.2. A narrow question arising in this writ petition was : whether the petitioners' said machinery would fall under Item 72(18) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff, dealing with the 'Mining Machinery' or under Item 72(b), thereof dealing with the machinery in general, not otherwise provided in the said Schedule 3. Few facts leading to the dispute covered in the present petition may be set out at the outset.4. The petitioners are a mining concern, having i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›