Mumbai Court January 1984 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. P. A. KapadiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD315(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri B. R. Adwalpalkar, Accountant Member - The only contention of the department in this estate duty appeal is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Controller, Bombay, erred in holding that the share of the lineal descendants cannot be assessed to estate duty in the case of the deceased under section 34(1) (c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (the Act).2. In the course of the assessment proceeding in the estate duty case of late Shri A. C. Kapadia, who died on 10-1-1967, the accountable person, viz., Shri P. A. Kapadia had claimed, inter alia, that 2/9th share of the lineal descendants of the deceased should not be included in the estate passing on his death, in view of the Madras High Court decision in the case of V. Devaki Ammal v. ACED : [1973]91ITR24(Mad) , which has been followed by a Bench of the Tribunal at Bombay. The Assistant Controller, however, did not find this contention to be acceptable as the decision cited as being cont...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Girdharilal Shah Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD439(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee, an individual, relating to his assessment for the assessment year 1979-80, raises an interesting issue. The assessee, it may be stated, by an agreement dated 20-12-1972, had agreed to purchase the office premises No. 5 on 12th floor of the building that was under construction known as 'Atlanta' situate on leasehold plot bearing No. 209, Nariman Point, Bombay-21, from the builders, Shree Rangnath Properties Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 68,950. During the course of five to six years, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 65,502.50 towards part consideration for the aforesaid office premises, the balance remaining outstanding stood at Rs. 437.50.In the meantime, the consideration was reduced from Rs. 68,950 to Rs. 65,940. By another agreement dated 26-4-1978, entered into with Shri Ramanlal Rajpal Shah, the assessee has sold his right, title and interest in the abovesaid office premises for a sum of Rs. 1,41,300.There is no dispute that the surplus is liable to...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Society of Advertisers Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD477(Mum.)
1. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee-company claimed deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of the dividend income received by it from the Unit Trust of India. The ITO observed that the deduction under Section 80M was allowable in respect of the dividend declared by a domestic company. According to him, the Unit Trust of India was not a domestic company within the meaning of Section 80M. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ITO. While doing so, he observed as under : 3. Section 80M provides for deduction in respect of inter-corporate dividends received by a domestic company from another domestic company. Domestic company has been defined in Section 80B(2) as follows : 'domestic company' means an Indian company, or any other company which, in respect of its income liable to tax under this Act, has made the prescr...
Tag this Judgment!Ayodhyabai Krishna Gaikwad Vs. Gokul Anna Deokar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR466
1. This is an appeal by the original complainant against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, in Criminal Case No. 303 of 1979 in respect of offences under sections 323, 342 and 504 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C. decided on 31st October 1980.2. The case of the complainant Ayodhyabai in the lower Court was that on 2nd August 1979 at about 5.30 p.m. in front of the temple in village Sakat Khurd, taluka Paranda, district Osmanabad, she found her daughter named Yeshoda, a school-going girl, weeping and so, she asked her why she was weeping. Yeshoda replied to her that she was beaten by accused No. 2 Somanath. She alleged that all the accused came to the spot with sticks in their hands and they started abusing her. Accused No. 2 gave a blow of spade on her head, while accused No. 1 pelted a stone on the left side her back. Accused No. 2 also gave a spade blow on the right arm pit and on the upper side of thigh and due to this assault, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Joy Ice Cream, Bombay Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR322; 1989(39)ELT521(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture and sell ice cream. On 4th April, 1979 they were issued an import licence for a continuous freezer for use in the manufacture of ice cream. It arrived by air on 30th May, 1979. On 31st May, 1979 a bill of entry was filed which classified the freezer under Item 84.15(1) of the Customs Tariff, 1975, upon the advice of the Customs Appraisement Department. For the purpose of countervailing duty it was classified under Tariff Item 29A(1) of the Customs Tariff. On 5th June, 1979 the petitioners wrote to the Assistant Collector of Customs and submitted that the freezer should be classified as dairy machinery under Item 84.26. On 19th June, 1979 the Assistant Collector of Customs held that the freezer should be assessed under Item 84.15(1) of the Customs Tariff and, for the purpose of countervailing duty, under Tariff Item 29-A(1). The petitioners preferred an appeal on 4th August, 1979. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. He found that what ...
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Damodar Wani Vs. Narmadabai T. Nave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR310; 1984MhLJ313
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge (Masodkar, J.), who in his referring order dated November 17, 1983, found that there is a conflict between two judgments of the two learned Single Judges of this Court and his own judgment in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1979 decided on September 8, 1983 (Waman Deoram Sonawane v. Shri Ganesh Mandir (1983) 86 Bom. L.R 40. In Waman Sonawane's case, Waman was a tenant and a decree for eviction was passed against him under the provisions of Section 12(3)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). The decree for eviction was passed on default of payment of the education cess and it was contended on behalf of the tenant that such a decree could not have been made under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contention on behalf of the tenant was that the total amount due for the period July 1, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ayodhyabai Krishna Gaikwad Vs. Gokul Anna Deokar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1018
Khandekar, J.1. This is an appeal by the original complainant against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, in Criminal Case No. 303 of 1979 in respect of offences under Sections 323, 342 and 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. decided on 31st Oct. 1980.2. The case of the complainant Ayodhyabai in the lower Court was that on 2nd Aug. 1979 at about 5.30 p.m. in front of the temple in village Sakat Khurd, taluka Paranda, district Osmanabad, she found her daughter named Yeshoda, a school-going girl, weeping and so, she asked her why she was weeping. Yeshoda replied to her that she was beaten by accused No. 2 Somanath. She alleged that all the accused came to the spot with sticks in their hands and they started abusing her. Accused No. 2 gave a blow of spade on her head, while accused No. 1 pelted a stone on the left side her back. Accused No. 2 also gave a spade blow on the right arm pit and on the upper side of thigh and due to this ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Elys Chemicals Lab. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD325(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri P. J. Goradia, Accountant Member - In this appeal filed by the revenue, following grounds are taken :1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the ITO to delete the disallowance of bonus to the tune of Rs. 81,914 ignoring the fact that the said provision was in excess of limits prescribed under section 36(1) (ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that in respect of disallowance of remuneration paid to a director, provisions of section 40(c) are applicable and not 40A (5) of the Income-tax Act.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the ITO to allow interest under section 214 to the assessee on the excess amount of advance tax paid as per law, ignoring the fact that no appeal lies against provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Kersasp Ardeshir Mehta Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC153
Vaze, J.1. Kersasp Ardeshir Mehta met with an accident at 4.15 p.m. on 26th April 1970 in front of Council Hall. The negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep which dashed against him was not in issue before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the only issue that was before the Tribunal was regarding damages. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 2,100/- as general damages against which Mehta appeals and claims Rs. 15,000/- by way of damages, general and special in this appeal.2. Only one witness was examined in this case, that is, the claimant himself and he told the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 350/- per month and used to earn about Rs. 200/- by way of overtime.3. It appears that before the Tribunal, the counsel for Mehta, properly conceded that Mehta has received his salary as well as the medical expenses from his employer the Central Bank. That is why only general damages to the extent of Rs. 2,100/- were awarded by the Tribunal.4. I am afraid that it would not be a correct a...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Bank of India
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD698(Mum.)
1. Since these are cross-appeals, they are disposed of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.2. These appeals relate to the income-tax assessment of Bank of India, a nationalised bank, for the assessment year 1976-77, for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1975. We have heard Shri S.E. Dastur, the learned counsel for the assessee, and Shri S. Krishnan, the learned departmental representative and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the materials placed by them in support of the same.3 to 12. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 13. This leaves us with ground Nos. 3 and 4 in the revenue's appeal, which are as follows: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Without prejudice to ground No. 3, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »