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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC(1993)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-Appeal No. A-1277/BI-253/82 dt. 2.9.82 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the order-in-original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise} Bombay who rejected the appellant's claim of refund of Rs. 3232.93 paise said to be the excess duty paid by the appellants during the period from 1.8.76 to 16.11.78.2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are few and simple and undisputed. The appellants storage tank No. 202 was due for recalibration on 31.7.78. Due to Unavoidable circumstances the appellants could not get it recalibrated by that date, and they sought extension of time originally till 31.10.78 and subsequently till 30.11.78. Their request for extension appeared to have been granted subject to the condition that difference in duty if any, on the basis of the revised calibration charge should be paid. While giving such an un...
Shri Ram Prasad Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2077DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of the Order-in-Original No. Gold/19/1976 dated 12-7-1977 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur by which he directed the confiscation of 878.800 gms. of gold ornaments and primary gold. But however, gave the option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 13,000/-. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the appellant filed an appeal before the Gold Control Administrator and the said appeal stood statutorily transferred to this Tribunal under Section 32K of the Gold Control Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). That the appellant one Shri Ram Prasad Gopilal Soni was a certified goldsmith and was carrying on his activities at Anjad in a residential cum business premises. On 25-6-1976, the officer of the Central Excise Department, Indore Division carried out a search of the said business-cum-residential premises and seized primary gold and gold ornaments from the sh...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Acme Thread Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Bom)393
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this reference the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, s. 79 of the IT Act, 1961 applied in the case ?'2. It would seem that the answer to be given to this question is concluded in favour of the assessee on a two fold consideration - one legal and the other factual and/or logical.3. In the first place it would seem that the Tribunal was entirely right in coming to the conclusion that the change in the shareholding of the assessee company was not effected with a view to avoid or reducing any liability of tax. This is discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph 18 of its appellate order and the approach as well as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal would seem to be unexceptionable. This is the second aspect of the matter.4. It is now settled as as far this court is concerned that s. 79 will apply only where the change in shareholding has taken place in the previous year relevant to assessment year und...
Lallubhai Amichand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR215(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference, two questions are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs. 9,16,285 was assessable to tax ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to rebate in tax under s. 5(2)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Finance Act, 1966 ?'The answer to be given to these two questions would seem to be concluded as far as this High Court is concerned by its decision in Metal Rolling Works P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]142ITR170(Bom) . The assessee therein had activities similar to those of the activities of the assessee before us and identical points arose for consideration. We have been invited to answer the two questions in accordance with the said decision without further discussion of facts and without reference to the law as discussed in the said decision.Accordingly, we answer the questions, as under :No. 1 : In the affirmative and in favo...
Maharashtra Fertilisers and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)9; [1984]150ITR317(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. In this case the assessee at whose instance the reference is made, is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of manure mixtures. It is assessed to income-tax at Poona for being used constructed a godown outside the municipal limited of Poona for being used in its business. Before the construction was completed, a firm named M/s. Parekh Trader requested (the assessee) that the godown be give to it one rent. There was no machinery nor plant fixed in the godown. Instead of using the godown for its own business the assessee gave the same on rent to M/s. Parekh Traders. The question that arose was whether the income so derived by the assessee should be treated as income from house property.2. The ITO held that such income had to be assessed as income from other sources. The AAC, on appeal filed by the assessee, held that such income was income from house property, but enhanced the annual value of the godown. The Tribunal, for reasons which are iden...
Parekh Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)4; [1984]150ITR310(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The assessee at whose instance this reference under s. 256(I) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is made, is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of manure mixtures. It is assessed to income-tax at Poona. It constructed a godown outside the limits of the Poona Municipality. From July, 1968, till the middle of November, 1968, it is used the godown for storing its raw materials, and finished products. Thereafter the godown was let out to the State of Maharashtra and the tenancy continued up to January, 1971. Thereafter, the assessee obtained possession of the godown and began using it for its own purposes. In the assessment year 1970-71, with which we are here concerned, the assessee disclosed the figure of Rs. 80,092 as income from house property against the godown rent of Rs. 1,08,300 received from the State. Thereafter, it sought to file revised returns in respect of this income from house property. The ITO held that the rent received for the godown co...
ishwar Chinga Shetty and anr. Vs. Jivanji Bhulabhai Patel Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR371
M.R. Waikar, J.1. While hearing Appeal from Order No. 159 of 1980 and Civil Revision Application No. 628 of 1980, the learned Single Judge (S.K. Desai, J.) found that in these two matters, so also in several others pending in the City Civil Court, questions often arise about the scope of section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). The learned Single Judge found that in view of one decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Nasik, J.) in Appeal from Order No. 299/1965 Shri Kantilal v. Ganesh Sadashiv, decided on 24-10-1966, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in these matters is almost ousted inasmuch as Naik, J., held that it is the jurisdiction of the Housing Commissioner which pervades and takes under its wide umbrella cases not only of changes in the construction of the tenements occupied by the purchasers, but cases of additional structures or enclosures ...
Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput Vs. Shankar Motiram Nale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom19
1. This is a second appeal by the appellant-plaintiff aginst the concurrent decisions of both the Courts below dismissing his suit for possession of 33 gunthas area from out of filed Survey No. 59/1, area 3 acres 12Against decision of D. D. Sutavani Dist. J., Buldana, d/- 16-4-1971.IA/ JA / E 141 /83/ SNVGunthas, of village Nimbhari in Malkapur taluqa of Buldana district.2. The appellant-plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land Survey No. 59/1 , Area 3 acres 12 gunthas, land revenue Rs. 8/- of village Nimbhari from Onkar sakharam Patil his brothers and certain other persons under a registered sale deed Ex. 33 dated 2-1-1961. It was the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that in the months of June 1963 and June 1964 , the respondent who was cultivating the adjoining pot-hissa Survey No. 59/1-A, 3 acres 8 gunthas area, encroached upon 33 gunthas land from the plaintiff's field Survey No. 59/1 The appellant -plaintiff got the land measured on 24-5-1965 claiming possession of t...
Amrut Vishnu Keskar Vs. Bhaskar Trimbak Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR12; 1983MhLJ1017
Masodkar, J.1. This is the original tenant's petition that questions the reversing judgment rendered by the appeal Court by which a decree has been made for possession of the tenanted premises, holding that it has been established that the tenant has acquired suitable accommodation and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to possession. The trial Court rejected this claim holding that it was not established that the defendant had acquired a suitable accommodation and was not using the tenanted premises for his residence. That finding has been reversed by the judgment under challenge.2. A bare perusal of the evidence and the controversy between the parties go to show that the impugned judgment is unsustainable and there is a clear error in assuming that the tenant had ceased to use the premises for his residence.3. The facts which cannot be seriously disputed and even as are deposed to by the landlord are that the defendant-tenant came into the suit premises in April 1955. He has five ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P. Vs. Project Automobiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Bom)189; [1984]150ITR266(Bom); [1983]15TAXMAN227(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner and the following question of law has been refereed to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the stipulated payment of Rs. 62,500 or any part thereof is of a revenue nature ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm which was at the relevant time engaged in the business of motor and automobile parts. It also carried on the business of running or petrol pump and service station. This business was carried on even prior to July 9, 1959, on land which belonged to Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant Project (hereinafter referred to as the 'plot owner'). The assessee received a letter from the plot owner dated December 14, 1960, mentioning that the licence given to the assessee dated July 9, 1959, allotting the plot on temporary lease basis for petrol pump and service station was being thereby terminated. The letter further stated that in case the ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »