Mumbai Court September 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Boehringer Knoll Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)367; [1984]148ITR70(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN355(Bom)
Desai, J.1. Two questions stand referred to us :'(1) Where, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of inclusion in the amount of capital employed, as understood within the meaning of rule 19A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the amount of Rs. 6,98,057 representing payments made for certain capital assets ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis of exclusion of interest of Rs. 20,310 not due on the first day of the accounting year from the liabilities for computing the capital employed as understood within the meaning of rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, counsel are agreed that as far as this court is concerned, the answer to be given is concluded by its decision in CIT v. Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. : [1979]119...
Tag this Judgment!Rajashri Yeshwant Jadhav and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Bom31; ILR1985Bom356
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged R.6 of the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admission 1983-84 (hereinafter called the Admission Rules) on the ground that the said Rule is violative of the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution it being arbitrary in nature and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved viz. selection of meritorious candidate for admission to the medical college.2. Shri K.K.Singhvi and Shri Avinash Shivade, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the addition of marks to give weightage to the students for admission to the medical college as incorporated in the various sub-rules of R. 6 is wholly unwarranted, arbitrary and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. According to the learned Counsel, this Rule giving weightage in substance purports to defeat the very purpose of selection viz. selection of the most ...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Hameed Jaffery.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]7ITD52(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri V. Balasubramanian, Vice President - The assessee was occupying Flat No. 9-G, Malabar Apartment at Napean Sea Road, Bombay-6, since May 1968 on a leave and licence basis. He was paying a compensation of Rs. 525 per month. On 16-7-1973 he purchased this property for Rs. 36,375. The property was sold for Rs. 70,000 on 11-8-1974. On 1-8-1974 the assessee purchased Flat No. 203 in Casablanca for Rs. 1,10,000. Since he was occupying the flat which is sold on 11-8-1974 for more than two years before its sale, the assessee claimed exemption from capital gains under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO did not grant relief on the ground that the assessee was not the owner of the flat for more than two years. On appeal, the AAC allowed the assessees claim. Hence, the departmental appeal.2. The learned counsel for the department has pointed out that the assessee was not occupying the flat as owner but was in a relationship to the flat as not even a tenant but s...
Tag this Judgment!Mancharrao Narsingrao Heble Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR305(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order of the assessment dated February 28, 1981, passed by the 7th Income-tax Officer, P-Circle, Bombay. The petitioner is occupying a flat on the 6th floor of the building 'Atur Terraces' situate at 19, Cuffe Parade, and for the assessment year 1978-79, the petitioner filed his return and in the return the property income from this flat was not shown. The ITO, while passing the impugned order, set out the contentions of the petitioner that he is neither the owner of the flat nor can he be deemed to be the owner, and rejected the contention holding that the income from the house property is assessable to tax.2. The learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, submitting that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy provided under the I.T. Act, 1961....
Tag this Judgment!Manoharrao Narsingrao Heble Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)216; [1985]151ITR304(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN591(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed u/Art 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order of assessment dt. 24-2-1981 passed by the 7th ITO, P-Circle, Bombay. The petitioner is occupying a flat on the 6th floor of the building 'Atur Terraces', situate at 19th Cuffe Parade, and for the asst. yr. 1978-79 the petitioner filed his return and in the return the property income from this flat was not shown. The ITO, while passing the impugned order, set out the contentions of the petitioner that he is neither the owner of the flat nor can be deemed to be the owner and rejected the contention holding that the income from the house property is assessable to tax.2. The ld. counsel on behalf of the revenue raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, submitting that the petitioner had efficacious alternative remedy provided under the IT Act. The petitioner could prefer an appeal u/s 246 of the IT ...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Dattatraya Tare and Etc. Vs. Nagpur University, Nagpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom115
Shah, J.1. These three writ petitions under Act. 226 of the Constitution can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment since the points involved are the same. In all these petitions. The petitioners have proved for a declaration that the result of the revaluation of their papers in the examination held in summer 1982 is null and void and also for quashing certain resolutions of the Academic Council and the Executive Council as being illegal land ultra vires S. 64. Nagpur University Act. 1974.2. The facts are few and not in dispute. The three petitioners appeared for the examinations held in or about April 1982. The petitioner in Write Petition No. 498 of 1983. Miss Part-I examination in sanskrit. She was placed First Class First as she secured the highest number of marks in aggregate. In one of the papers namely. Paper I on Vedic Linguistics Etymology. She was declared to have secured only 36 marks. As she was not satisfied with the assessment of her performance in the said subjec...
Tag this Judgment!Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR36
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. Before us several petitions have been posted for hearing. They involve common questions of law and facts and it would have been possible for us to dispose of all of them by a common judgment and order. However, there may be some differences in some details about the facts involved in different petitions. Therefore, we prefer to narrate the facts involved in Special Civil Application No. 151 of 1975 which has been given the leading place by the advocates appearing for the petitioners in various petitions. After considering the facts in this petition and after deciding the questions of law arising in this petition, we will decide what relief, if any can be given to the petitioner in this petition as well as to petitioners in other petitions.2. We must now proceed to narrate the facts. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 151 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, holds as grantee or 'Concessionario' (concessionaire) various iron ore mines in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay-iii, Bombay Vs. K.R. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)187; [1985]151ITR250(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN503(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The assessee is the sole surviving executor and trustee of the will of the late Mrs. Bhikhubai Chandulal Jalundhwala. She died on January 8, 1962, leaving an estate valued for the purpose of estate duty at Rs. 24 lakhs and consisting of movable and immovable properties. She left behind her last will executed on January 5, 1962. Under the provisions of the will, the deceased appointed the assessee and one B. G. Amin, Solicitor now deal, as executors and trustees thereof. She directed the executors and trustees by the will to pay her debts, funeral expenses and estate duty. She directed them to wind up a business that she was then conducting or to sell it as a going concern. She directed them to convert all the movable and immovable properties in her estate, other than those bequeathed specifically, into cash. She listed the specific bequests. Clauses 15, 16 and 20 of the will are most relevant to this proceeding and read thus :'15. I direct that my executors and trustees ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhansilal Ramchandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR8; 1984MhLJ14
Kantharia, J.1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation having their registered office at Vahatuk Bhavan, Belassis Road, Bombay-400 008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') by this writ petition challenges the order dated July 13, 1979 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 2') dismissing Application (IT) No. 50 of 1978 preferred by them under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The short facts leading to this writ petition are that Bhansilal Ramchandra Patil (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent No. 1') was employed by the Corporation as a State Transport Conductor, Badge No. 376, Shahada, District Dhule. When he was on duty on bus No. 6651, en-route between Khetiya and Shahala on August 16, 1976, Assistant Traffic Inspector Y. H. Bhadage checked the bus at Brahnabpur and noticed that respondent No. 1 had not issued tickets to 4 passengers despit...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabro Wamanrao Patti Vs. Majhav Gotu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom323; (1984)86BOMLR5
Vaze, J.1. Should the existence of avowed political rivalry between two public figures act as a determent upon the one of them to ,move the machinery of justice when he has reason to believe that a defalcation of public funds has taken place in a co-operative venture in which his political rival is at the helm of affairs ?2. Madhavrao Gotu Patil ('Madhavrao) of Chopda in jalgaon district has been in the political area for the last 45 years and during the last 30 years has held various assignments and offices like Presidentship of the House of State Legislature. Madhyavrao is connected with the banking industrial and education activities of his district. He has been the Managing Director of Kharedi Vikri Sangh ('Sangh') since 1967, a co-operative venture of the local farmers.3. Gulabrao Wammanrao Patil (Goulabrao) of Dihiwad of thee same district belongs to a rival political party and on 6th April 1977 filed a criminal and complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »