Mumbai Court March 1983 Judgments
Smt. Kantadevi Sajjankumar Vs. Sixth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD467(Mum.)
1. These four appeals by the assessee are against the order of the AAC dismissing the appeals filed by her for the four assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 as invalid. We are called upon only to decide the preliminary issue whether the defects arc curable or not.2. The assessments to wealth-tax were completed on various dates.Appeals under Section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), have to be filed within 30 days of the date of service of demand notice. On the last day, i.e., on the 30th day, the appeals were filed in the proper form; but these were signed by the chartered accountant of the assessee. The AAC heard the appeals on several dates, but he seems to have noticed the defect in the memorandum of appeals belatedly. By his letter dated 21-8-198.1, he called upon the assessee to explain the reason why the appeals were not signed by the appellant herself. The assessee's chartered accountant replied by his letter dated 16-9-1981 that there were certain circumstances under ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagji Vallabhaji and Co. Vs. Meghji Vijpar and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR140
R.D. Tulpule, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, City Civil Court in S.C. Suit No. 8109 of 1972. The suit and the appeal which would ordinarily appear to be raising a simple controversy as between a landlord and tenant has assumed considerable proportion and magnitude.2. The appellants are the original defendants---M/s. Nagji Vallabhji and Co. The first plaintiff is a firm 'M/s. Meghji Vijpar and Co., which was a tenant of Bay No. 4 in Fully Compartment' 'I' i.e. godown No. 4, which is situated at Rayon Grain Market at Dana Bunder. The dispute relates to Gala No. 4 in the said godown.3. Stated briefly the case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff firm which was initially only M/s. Meghji Vijpar and Co. alone were the tenants of the said premises, having taken the premises from the trustees of the Port of Bombay. That the defendants for some years in the part were in occupation of this godown No. 4 under written agreement from time to time, wh...
Tag this Judgment!J.D. Metha and anr. Vs. P.H. Nanavati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR45
M.P. Kanade, J.1. These two applications arise out of a criminal complaint filed by one P.H. Nanavati in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. Criminal Application No. 71 of 1983 is filed by the Chairman of the Navyug Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, while Criminal Application No. 72 of 1983 is filed by one K.M. Shah, the Ex- Chairman of the Society.2. For relevant facts leading to these criminal application require to be stated in order to appreciate the point involved in them. During the year 1979-80 P.H. Nanavati, opponent No. 1 in Criminal Application No. 71 of 1983 was the Chairman of the said Society, and one C.P. Wagh, opponent No. 2 in both criminal application was the Honorary General Secretary of the said Society. On November 24, 1980 Nanavati filed a complaint against Wagh under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, which is numbered as Case No. 140 / S of 1980. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Yahya Ali Ahmad Fahem Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR84; (1983)85BOMLR188
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge an order passed by the Government of Maharashtra on 29th September, 1982 Detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act.' The order was executed on the same day. Also on the same day the grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner in accordance with law. This petition has been filed on 3rd November, 1982 challenging the said order of detention.2. Before considering the contentions raised by Mr. Sawant, appearing in support of the petition, it would be profitable to briefly refer to the grounds of detention on which the order of detention has been passed . The communication containing the grounds of detention has been annexed as Exh. A to the petition. In paragraph (a) of the said communication the circumstances in which the petitioner arrived at Bombay by Yemen Airways have been mentioned. When h...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)184; [1984]150ITR28(Bom); [1984]16TAXMAN202(Bom)
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. This reference was specially taken up for hearing today, because on the decision of one of the questions referred to in this reference depended the decision of Writ Petition No. 2759 of 1979, in which the claim for bonus made by the employees of the assessee almost twenty years back for the year 1960=61, was to be decided.2. This is a reference made at the instance of the applicant-assessee under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the questions referred to by the Tribunal are as follows :-1962-63, 1963-64 and 1965-66 assessment years. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim that the payment of the sum of Rs. 24 lakhs by the assessee to Automobile Products of India Ltd., Bombay, under the agreement dated April 29, 1961, was with a view to remove the obstruction in the way of the assessee's carrying on its business was rightly rejected by the Tribunal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi ShriyA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD809(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri Prakash Narain, Accountant Member - The dispute in this appeal relates to the valuation of certain shares held by the assessee. Some of the shares were quoted at different stock exchanges and were showing different rates. In many cases, the assessee valued them at the lowest quotation. The ITO, however, held that they required to be valued at the highest quotation at any stock exchange in the country.2. The assessee appealed to the AAC. The latter, following a circular of the Board, directed the WTO to adopt the rate as shown at the nearest stock exchange. In the case of the assessee, the nearest stock exchange happened to be Delhi. The AAC, therefore, directed the WTO to adopt the rates of Delhi stock exchange. He further observed that if a share was not quoted at Delhi stock exchange, then the rate at Calcutta stock exchange could be adopted. He gave the date of the Boards Circular as 11-5-1959.3. The learned departmental representative pointed out that the AAC was, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Globe theatres Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom265; (1983)85BOMLR174
ORDER1. This writ petition concerns the exemption from payment of entertainment duty granted by the State of Maharashtra to Sir Richard Attenborough's film 'GANDHI '.2. on 9th Dec., 1982 an agreement was arrived at between the Globe Theatres Pvt. Ltd., the 1st petitioner, and the Music India Ltd., the 3rd respondent. Music India are the distributors of the film 'GANDHI '. Globe Theatres are the owner of the Regal Cinema at Bombay . By the agreement the parties agreed that the film 'GANDHI ' would be released in English at the Regal on 14th Jan., 1983 and that Music India would pay each week to Globe Theatres the fixed sum of Rs. 33, 078/- plus an additional amount depending upon receipts. An English print of the film 'GANDHI' was commercially released at Regal from 28th Jan., 1983.3. On 28th Feb., 1983 the State of Maharashtra, the 1st respondent, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(3) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923, 'exempted throughout the State of Maharashtra th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Hanif Kasim Maniyar Vs. Pralhad Mahadeo Kamble and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR648
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. On October 6, 1977 Pralhad Mahadeo Kamble, the Food Inspector visited a bakery conducted by the petitioner herein at Barsi in Solapur District. He was accompanied by two panch witnesses. Samples of two varieties of biscuits were purchased. The necessary formalities were observed as the sample was divided into three parts. A detailed panchanama was recorded. In due course both the samples were forwarded to the Public Analyst who certified both not conforming with the standard under the Rules and those were adulterated. Ultimately two complaints were filed by the Food Inspector in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barsi, against the petitioner for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two cases were numbered as Criminal Case No. 757 of 1979 and Criminal Case No. 758 of 1979.2. Process was issued and accused appeared in both the cases. However, for quite some time there was no effective progress i...
Tag this Judgment!Narottamdas Ramchand and Co. Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD46(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. B. Menon, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessee, which is a registered firm, relates to the assessment year 1979-80, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1979.2 & 3. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.]4. Ground No. 3 - This is to the effect that the commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the charging if interest of Rs. 255 under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (the Act). The assessee field Form No. 28A on 11-9-1978 on the basis of the income returned for the assessment year 1978-79 under section 209A (1) (a) of the Act. The income stated was Rs. 2,18,730 and the advance tax thereon was computed at Rs. 44,269. Rs. 14,757, being one-third of the advance tax, was paid on 11-9-1978. Another sum of Rs. 14,757 was paid on 13-12-1978 as the next installment. On 12-3-1979, the assessee field Form No. 29 estimating income at Rs. 2.5 lakhs and the tax liability at Rs. 52,900. On this basis, a sum of Rs. 23,386 was paid as...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Abdul Waheed Mohomed Nakim Khan Vs. Shyam Behari Rameshwar Kal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas284(Bom)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by original opposite party No. 2A against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay, dated July 19, 1979, directing him to pay to the legal representative of the deceased, Lalchand Rameshwar Kalwar, a sum of Rs. 30,500 by way of just compensation together with interest at 6% per annum as well as costs of the proceedings.2. It is an admitted position that the deceased, Lalchand Rameshwar Kalvar, died in a motor accident which took place on February 13, 1975, at about 11.30 a.m. near Keshram Gokulchand Godown, Kolsa Bunder, Darukhana, Bombay-10. The legal representative of the deceased filed an application before the Accidents Claims Tribunal Claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,000. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts of the case because it is not disputed before us that the deceased sustained injuries in the motor accident on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle bear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »