Mumbai Court August 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.
K.P. Pednekar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD483(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 4-5-1981 of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1974-75, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1974.2. The assessee is an individual. He is an employee of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. He derives income from salary.3. The employer of the assessee made a housing loan scheme in order to encourage its employees to have living accommodation of their own within the precincts of Greater Bombay. The object of the scheme has been stated in the scheme itself to facilitate the purchase of flats on ownership basis by the employees for residential accommodation. For this purpose, the employer framed a scheme under which loans were given to the employees to buy residential accommodation. It has been made clear in the terms of the scheme that the loans would be granted entirely at the discretion of the employer and no employee shall be entitled to the loan as a matter of right. The maximum amount of loan that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Vitre Engineering Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)197; [1984]150ITR183(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN213(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The assessee before us is Messrs Vitre Engineering Co., Bombay. It carries on work in India as consulting engineers. However, it is not a separate entity in the sense known to company law being a division or a branch of Messrs Vitre Corporation, a Corporation incorporated in the United States of America. However, the Indian Division, viz. the assessee will be required to be considered as a company under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.2. Some of the employees of the assessee are American nationals, who were paid salaries partly in dollars and partly in rupees. The dollar part of the salary was paid by the head office in New York. The head office also charge the assessee for certain overhead expenses. A third head of account which was claimed by the head office pertains to work like designs, supply of drawings, etc. All this work was done in the United States of America and payment for the same was made in dollars in the United States of America. A running account used to be kept ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Buckau Wolf New India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)412; [1984]150ITR180(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN267(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, a question is referred to this court at the instance of the revenue. The question is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assesee was entitled to education under s. 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, in respect of the profits from machining charges for repairs to machines sold and interest from customers on outstanding sale proceeds of machines manufactured by it ?2. Section 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the relevant time read thus :'80-I. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from priority industries in the case of certain companies-(1) In the case of a company to which this section applies, where the gross total income includes any profits and gains attributable to any priority industry, there shall be allowed, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, a deduction ...
Vishnu J. Pandya Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR221
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. By this petition the challenge is to the order made by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay refusing an application under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, wherein the plaintiff had sought an order to get the deposit of the rent and arrears due from the defendants.2. Few facts that need be stated so as to indicate the eventual order to which the parties are submitting are that Flat No. G-40 on the 10th Floor of the Building at Plot No. 50 Venus Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. is the property of the present petitioner. It appears to have been given on 11 months licence in favour of defendant No.1. One Raghubir Singh, it is the case of the plaintiff, was an employee of defendant No. 1-Company and for his purposes, defendant No.1 - Company took the flat on leave and licence, the defendant No.1-Company being liable under that agreement and being the licensee. The defence raised on behalf of defendant No. 1-Company appears to be that it was Col. Raghubir Singh who ...
Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. Vs. Govindji Jevat and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR34
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners have entered into two contracts with the respondents for the purchase of 700 and 500 bales of cotton. The first contract for the purchase of 700 bales of cotton was dated 16-5-1977, and there was a second contract entered into on 27-5-1977, for the purchase of 500 bales of cotton. The respondents are members of the East India Cotton Association Ltd., and both the contracts were entered into subject to the bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. The petitioners are not members of this Association. However, the bye-laws provided for arbitration in respect of disputes between members and non-members also. The respondents carry on business at Bombay while the petitioners have their registered office at Madurai. The contracts were for the supply of cotton from Bombay for delivery at Tiruttani.2. There were disputes between the parties in respect of these two contracts. The respondents referred their disputes to arbitration under bye-law 38 of ...
Sharnappa V. Patrika Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR106
M.N. Chandurkar, Acting C.J.1. All these three petitions challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings in connection with what has come to be known as 'the Lower Terna Project,' The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Was issued on December 13, 1981 and the notification recited that the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, was of the opinion that acquisition of the lands notified was urgently necessary and he further directed under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act that the provisions of 5A of the said Act shall not apply in respect of the said lands. The same notification also recited that if the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, was satisfied that the said lands were needed for the purpose specified in the notification, a final notification to that effect under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will be published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. The public purpose stated in the said notification is 'Lower Terna P...
Mohan H. Punjabi Vs. Vachha and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR2; 1983MhLJ895
Kania, J.1. In Misc. No. 1579 of 1977 A. H. Punjabi, who sought to appear before us with our permission, on behalf of the appellant as his constituted attorney, made an application before the Taxing Master to permit him to appear on behalf of the appellant who is his brother. That application was rejected on October 12, 1978 on the ground that the said A. H. Punjabi was not an advocate. Thereafter the appellant took out a Chamber Summons, being Chamber Summons No. 600 of 1978 dated October 12, 1978, for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Taxing Master and for permitting A. H. Punjabi to proceed with the matter on behalf of the appellant before the Taxing Master. The Chamber Summons was dismissed by Parekh, J. on December 8, 1982 for default of appearance. The appellant then took out a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No. 183 of 1983 for setting aside the aforesaid order of dismissal for default and for restoring the said Chamber Summons on file. That Notice of Motion was d...
Air Corporation Employees' Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Cooperative Bank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ207Bom
1. The petitioners are a co-operative bank. The 1st respondents are a trade union of co-operative bank employees. The union made a demand for payment of 20% bonus to the petitioners' employees for the year 1976-77. A reference was made and was heard by the Industrial Tribunal. It is this award that is impugned here.2. The union alleged that the bank had make a substantial profit and should be required to pay bonus at the rate of 20%. The bank contended that on the basis of its profits for the relevant year the bonus payable worked out at not more than 6 1/2% but it was willing to pay at the rate of 8.33%. Both parties filed statements of bonus calculations based on the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the bank for the relevant year.3. The union disputed three deduction claimed by the bank. These were on account of : (a) liability of income-tax, (b) contribution to the reserve fund and (c) return at the rate of 8.5% on the capital invested.4. The bank claimed a deduction of ...
Barku Chendha Datir Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR761
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. The petitioner against whom an order under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act has been passed has filed this petition challenging the legality, validity and correctness of that order.2. The petitioner is a resident of village Sitane in Malegaon Tehsil. He is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat for about three years and is also the Chairman of the Milk Producing Society. On 16-1-1982, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon, issued a notice to the petitioner under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act informing the petitioner that the said Sub-Divisional Police Officer had been authorised by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to hold an inquiry and that in accordance therewith the notice had been issued. The notice further states that an action is intended to be taken for externment of the petitioner from Nasik, Dhule, Jalgaon and Ahmednagar Districts on account of certain averments and allegations mentioned in the accompaniment to the notice. The said accompaniment st...
Bhagwatiprasad Jhunjhunwala Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD216(Mum.)
1. With the consent of the parties, the four appeals by two different assessees are being consolidated and disposed of by this common order.The assessees are the trusts created by Ramjilal Jhunjhunwala and Purshottamlal Jhunjhunwaia, respectively. The assessment years involved are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The trusts were created on the same day and are identically worded. In respect of the trust of Ramjilal Jhunjhunwala, the trust property was certain shares in Oudh Sugar Mills. The shares were to be held for the benefit of Manjuladevi for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, the sole and absolute beneficiary would be the wife of the son of Bhagwatiprasad Jhunjhunwala. At the time of creation of the trust, no son was born to Bhagwatiprasad Jhunjhunwala.However, later a son was born to him. We are concerned with the valuation dates of 31-3-1971 and 31-3-1972. On both these valuation dates, the son of Bhagwatiprasad Jhunjhunwala had not married. The provisions of the trust created by Purshotta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »