Mumbai Court October 1984 Judgments
Anil T. Shetty Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT776Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order bearing No. 203/80 dated 17th March, 1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in dispute. The appellant's vessel bearing registration No. P.L.G.-684 was ordered to be confiscated by the Additional Collector but the appellant was given option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Board and the Board while confirming the confiscation reduced the fine from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. As the appellant was dissatisfied with the order of the Board he preferred a Revision Application.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri J.B. Raichandani advocate for the appellant submitted that the order of confiscation was made in the year 1974. The redemption fine...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Bharat H. Patel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD663(Mum.)
2. The assessee is an individual and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee was in the employment of two concerns, Vijay Flexible Containers (P.) Ltd. and Rathika (P.) Ltd. and the salary from these two concerns was Rs. 39,000 and Rs. 25,379, respectively. It was claimed before the ITO that the maximum deduction, as laid down in Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), should be worked out separately for each of the two employments, and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the standard deduction of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 3,500. The ITO, however, limited the standard deduction, as laid down under Section 16(i), to the overall limit of Rs. 3,500 prescribed for that year. When the matter went up in appeal, the AAC, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Rohit J. Patel [IT Appeal No. 3212 (Bom.) of 1980], held that the assessee should be allowed the standard deduction under Section 16(i) with reference to each employment separately, and, t...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD833(Mum)
ORDERPer Dr. V. Balasubramanian, Vice President - These are departmental appeals. There are four grounds common to all the four appeals, viz., the treatment of the lease rent as business income; disallowance of interest payment; disallowance of travelling expenses and the treatment of receipts from the hostel as property income. For the assessment year 1974-75 there is an extra ground relating to expenses incurred in the transport of machinery. All the grounds are considered below.2. The assessee-company was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling sugar up to the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO found that thereafter it leased out the factory with the sugar manufacturing machinery to a co-operative society named the Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The assessee was to receive a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as lease rent as per their lease deed dated 31-3-1971 and with effect from 1-8-1971. Before the ITO it claimed the receipts to be income from business on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD285(Mum.)
1. to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 4. In the main appeal, objection is taken to the following two additions made in the assessment: (i) disallowance of initial depreciation claimed by the assessee in respect of its power generation unit--Rs. 23,170.5. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim for initial depreciation for the following two reasons: (i) that the assessee did not manufacture items covered by the Ninth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ; and (ii) also that the machinery or plant in question was not installed for the purpose of business of generation or distribution of electricity.6. On appeal it was contended that Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), allowed such initial depreciation on the generation unit. But, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree. He held that a reading of the section showed that initial depreciation was allowable, provided the purpose was the business of generation and distribution of...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Sangle, Administrator, Manmad Municipal Council Vs. Vasantrao Sam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR355
ORDER1. The only point involved in this petition is whether sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary for prosecuting a public servant for the offence punishable under section 166 I.P.C.2. The above point arises on the following facts. The petitioner-accused at the relevant time was the Administrator of Manmad Municipal Council, Manmad, District Nasik. In his capacity as the Administrator of the Municipal Council he had received a sum of Rs. 10,60,500/- from the Government by way of grant for the School Board. As per rule 157(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, such grants are to be made over to the School Board within one week of their receipt from the Government. It is alleged that the Administrator, instead of making over the amount of the grant to the School Board, utilised the amount for other municipal purposes, and in spite of reminders from the School Board and the superior authorities he did not make over the whole of the amount of the grant to the School Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Salgaocar Industrial Gases Private Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT666(Bom)
Couto, J.1. Petitioner challenge by way of this writ petition the orders dated 7th August, 1976, 18th April, 1977, 16th June, 1979, 17th December, 1976, 19th April, 1977 and 17th September, 1979, hereby the import of Empty Dissolved Acetylene Cylinders had been charged with levy under Item 72(C) of the Customs Tariff and Item 28. They further challenged the levy of countervailing duty and seek the refund of an excess of import duty to the tune of Rs. 9,634.80 and the countervailing duty of Rs. 1,47,091.67.2. A few may be mentioned. Petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having their registered office at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, under a letter of intent dated 1st May, 1972, the Government of India had a authorised the petitioners to set up a project for the production of Industrial Oxygen and dissolved acetylene in Goa. Later on, the said letter of intent was converted into an industrial licence on or about 28th December, 1974. The Petitioners required conta...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Anthony Mendonca and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ58Bom; 1985MhLJ148
1. A provision has been introduced in the Secondary Schools Code of the Government of Maharashtra which requires the reservation of teaching and non-teaching posts in aided secondary schools for members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, nomadic tribes and other backward communities. The provision is sought to be applied to minority educational institutions that received grant-in-aid. This is a petition by a minority educational institution challenging the validity of such application upon the ground that it infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution.2. The 1st petitioner is the trustee of the St. Joseph's High School, which is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The 2nd petitioner is the principal of the said school. The trust has been formed with the principal object of giving education to Catholic children and other children, irrespective of religion, race or language. That the said school is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajirao Tukaram Manav Vs. Administrative Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR587
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. The appellant was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 1969 instituted by him in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Pune. Respondents were the original defendants. Respondent No. 1 is described as 'Administrative Officer (Education Officer) Municipal School Board, Pune Municipal Corporation Pune', and respondent No. 2 has been described as 'The Pune Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune'.2. The appellant-plaintiff was a trained primary teacher selected by the Competent Authorities. He was in the service of the Pune Municipal School Board. It was alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint that on the basis of the reports made by respondent No. 1 an inquiry held against him on certain complaints which terminated in his dismissal order, was vitiated for want of following proper procedure and following rules of Bombay Civil Services Rules. Plaintiff was dismissed from the service by a letter dated 11/12 Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Ghayaji Vs. Chandrakant Chintaman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC502
Masodkar, J.1. This is the original plaintiff's appeal arising out of the compensation suit which was partly decreed by the trial Court. In the original suit, the claim was to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. In the appeal, the same is for Rs. 17,500/-. The compensation is sought by the appellant-plaintiff who, admittedly, is the natural father of the deceased Bansilal. Bansilal met with his death in a car accident that occurred on January 15, 1968 at about 6-45 p.m. The deceased Bansilal appears to be of 18 years of age at the time of his death. While he was driving a cycle, he was dashed by Car. No. BMF 7164 in from of the gate of Alta Company at Khopoli. The car involved in the accident belonged to defendant No. 1 and was insured as such. The driver of the car by name Ganpat was also prosecuted and was convicted. It is no more in dispute that Bansilal died as a result of the injuries on January 16, 1968.2. Having held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving the trial Court reco...
Tag this Judgment!Sukiran Ltd. Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD746(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1979-80. There are as many as three grounds of appeal in the appeal memorandum. The first ground is that deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), should have been allowed on the gross dividend income of Rs. 1,19,018 and not on the alleged net dividend income of Rs. 85,128. By means of the second and the third grounds, it is contended that payment of interest in the case of an investment company like the assessee, is a normal business expenditure. It is required to be allowed against the business income and not against the dividend income. Observing that the assessee-company had itself computed the net dividend income after deducting the interest paid from the gross dividend in the past, the ITO had computed the assessee's net dividend income at Rs. 85,128 and allowed deduction under Section 80M on the said amount.2. It was reiterated before the Commissioner (Appea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »