Mumbai Court September 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.
Embassy Radio Television Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Bom)214; [1984]150ITR678(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN519(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company is challenging the legality of the action of the ITO in issuing notice dated July 1, 1974, under s. 226(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the notice dated July 20,1974, issuing prohibitory orders and, thereafter, threatening to recover the amount from the petitioner-company. The facts giving rise to the petition are required to be stated briefly to appreciate the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners.2. The petitioner-company was formed in the year 1971, with the object to take over Wireless Manufacturers (India), a partnership concern having ] four partners, who were all family members, at the relevant time. On July 12, 1971, the partnership concern entered into an agreement to sell its assets to the petitioner-company, and of the terms of the agreement indicates that the machinery of the partnership firm was already handed over to the petitioner-company long prior to the exe...
Prabhakar Tularam Vinchurkar and Etc. Etc. Vs. Dev Ashish Cooperative ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom65; 1983MhLJ1114
ORDER1. The Additional Small Cause Court, Nagpur granted a decree for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits along with costs of the suit and an inquiry into future mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant-tenant, Prabhakar in Civil Suit No. 1522/1976; Krishna in Civil Suit No. 1427 of 1976; Balaji in Civil Suit No. 1521 of 1976; Onkar in Civil Suit No. 1031 of 1976; Nilkanth in Civil Suit No. 1648 of 1976 and Narayan in Civil Suit No. 1425 of 1976 vide judgment and decree dt. 15-9-1982. The defendant in each of these cases respectively has come up with revision application numbered respectively as above challenging the said judgment and decree.2. The facts in each case are similar and identical except rate of rent and description of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the applicants in all these revision applications Shri P. G. Palshikar stated that he wants to restrict himself to only a legal challe...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrakant Tripathi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR562
Gadgil, J.1. This is a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Court against the three respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. Respondent No. 1-Chandrakant Tripathi - is a Minister of State for Urban Development of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 - Pundlik Meghe - is a reporter of Marathi daily newspaper 'Loksatta', while respondent No. 3-Vidyadhar Gokhale - is the editor of the said newspaper. Respondent No. 1 had a tour in Wardha district on July 24/25, 1981. During that tour the inauguration of Zilla Parishad dispensary in a small village Bhidi was made. Respondent No. 1 presided over the function. Respondent No. 2 has sent a report of that function to the Loksatta newspaper and on August 5, 1981 that report was published. During the course of the arguments the report was read in Marathi and we give below its translation in English.'The tour of Wardha District during two days viz. 24th and 25th July by the Union Minister. Vasantrao Sathe and the Minister Chandrakant Tripathi who is...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Krishna Narayan Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)195; [1984]150ITR513(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN535(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference, made at the instance of the Revenue, poses this question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the ITO to levy interest under proviso (iii) to section 139(1) is valid in law ?'2. The assessee is a firm whose return of income for the assessment year 1967-68 ought to have been filed on or before September 30, 1967. It was actually filed on March 16, 1969. No application for extension of time therefore had been submitted. The ITO completed the assessment on August 14, 1969. In this order, he made no mention regarding interest to be paid by the assessee under s. 139. Upon a perusal of the assessment records of the assessee, the Addl. CIT noted that the action of the ITO in not levying statutory interest under s. 139(1)(iii) of the Act while passing the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the inte...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Confeitaria De Janeiro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)180; [1984]150ITR502(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN331(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Tribunal Bangalore Division, Bangalore :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was a duly constituted partnership firm and the said entity was entitled to the benefits of registration under section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The Commissioner had sought reference in respect of two further questions, but according to the Tribunal, they were covered by question No. 1 which is the sole question referred to us.3. We are concerned in this reference with the firm of Messrs. Confeitaria de Janeiro. This firm was stated to be constituted by a deed of partnership executed on December 30, 1969. However, the stamp paper was purchased on January 9, 1970. The firm was claimed to have come into existence on April 1, 1969. The firm took over the business of bakery previously run by a body of individuals constituted by Andre Mascarenhas and his wife...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)212; [1984]150ITR529(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN473(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate tribunal, C-Bench, Bombay, at the instance of the assessee is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,55,378 being the excess of the value of the net assets of Latham Abercrombie and Co. Ltd. on the date of its amalgamation over the cost of the applicant's shareholding in that company is chargeable to tax as capital gains under section 45 of the I.T. Act 1961 ?'2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, a few facts may be stated. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1964-65 for which the previous year was the year ending on December 31, 1963. One Latham Abercrombie and Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Latham Abercrombie') was a 100% subsidiary company of the assessee. Latham Abercrombie had an issued and paid up capital of Rs. 2 lakhs divided into 2,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and the entire lot of 2,000 shares was held by the...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrakant Tripathi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1841
B.C. Gadgil, J. 1. This is a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Court against the three respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. Respondent No. 1 Chandrakant. Tripathi is a Minister of State for Urban Development of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 Pundlik Meghe is a reporter of Marathi daily newspaper 'Loksatta' while respondent No. 3 Vidyadhar Gokhale is the editor of the said newspaper. Respondent No. 1 had a tour in Wardha district on July 24/25, 1981. During that tour the inauguration of Zilla Parishad dispensary in a small village Bhidi was made. Respondent No. 1 presided over the function. Respondent No. 2 has sent a report of that function to the Loksatta newspaper and on August 5, 1981 that report was published. During the course of the arguments the report was read in Marathi and we give below its translation in English.The tour of Wardha District during two days viz. 24th and 25th July by the Union Minister Vasantrao Sathe and the Minister Chandrakant Tripathi who is in ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Ambalal P. Patel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD174(Mum.)
1. This is a departmental appeal. The issue involved is the computation of the value of the properties held by the HUF, of which the deceased was a member. This computation has to be done under Section 39 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act').2. The deceased was a member of a HUF. The family had made a gift of Rs. 10,000 to one of the members of the family. The deceased had died within a period of two years from the date of the gift. According to the Assistant Controller, in computing the value of the assets of the HUF the gift made by the family within two years period of death has to be included. On appeal, the Appellate Controller held that gift made by the deceased alone will have to be included under Section 9 of the Act.The HUF is a separate legal entity and, therefore, this section cannot cover such gifts. On that ground, he deleted the inclusion.3. The department is on appeal before us. Shri Chawla, for the department, submitted that on a proper reading of Section 39(3) it ...
Anil Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC295; 1983(14)ELT2173(Bom)
1. The short question which requires determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the order dated February 17, 1981 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, 'Group 'E', Bombay, is whether the petitioners are entitled to take advantage of the exemption notification dated December 5, 1979 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act. The facts giving rise to the petition are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the contention of the petitioners.2. The petitioner Company is a manufacturer of paper and has its factory at Dombivali in Thana District. For the manufacture of paper, pulp is an essential raw material and the said pulp is made out of waste papers which includes rejected piece of paper or paper-board either from conversion or after use. Under Tariff Item 47.02 under Chapter 47 of the Central Tariff, rate of duty of 100% is levied in respect of 'waste paper and paper-board; scrap artic...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Mr. and Mrs. Valenti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)201; [1984]150ITR408(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN433(Bom)
Desai, J.1. No appearance in court on behalf of the assessee.2. In this reference we are not satisfied that there has been proper service effected on the respondents. We found from the papers on the previous occasion that a notice of the reference application had been duly drawn up and the said notice together with a fee of Rs. 5 seems to have been handed over in the office of the Sheriff of Bombay on September 21, 1976. The necessary rubber stamp together with the signature of the Deputy Sheriff is found on the duplicate copy of the said notice in the papers. The matter was then kept back to ascertain whether in fact the registered packet had been despatched by the Sheriff's office to the assessee.3. We may also point out that in this case, as in many other matters, the address of the assessee given on the notice is very sketchy, For example in the instant case, the address given is Mr. and Mrs. Valentino F. Pinto, Mapuca, Goa. It is difficult to conceive that the Postal Department wo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »