Mumbai Court December 1984 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.
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: [1987]64STC420(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicants, who are the assessees, are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessees sold a refrigeration compressor under the invoice dated 15th October, 1974. In respect of this invoice an application was made by the assessees under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 for determination as to whether the article sold was covered by entry 47(b) of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 or whether it fell within the residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was also contended at one stage that the article was covered by entry 60 of Schedule C. In respect of this application, which ultimately went before the Sales Tax Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that the article in question fell within entry 47(b) of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. From this decision of the Tribunal, the following question has been referred to us under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax, 1959 :'Whether, on t...
Abdul Jabbar Ibrahim Vs. Serkop Builders and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR274; (1985)87BOMLR258; 1985MhLJ163
S.N. Khatri, J. 1. The common question of law that arises in these two revision petitions is whether a promoter is not liable to be prosecuted for offences under sections 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 r.w. section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') for the reasons that the agreement of sale between him and the purchasers of the flat concerned is not reduced to writing and registered as required by section 4 of the Act. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the private complaints of the two petitioners for the aforesaid reason. They have now come up in revision to this Court. This order dispose of both petitions.2. Abdul Jabbar (petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 234 of 1983) and Sheikh Ahmed Sange (Petitioner in Criminal Rev. Application No. 235 of 1983) filed two separate complaints before the learned Magistrate against M/s. Serkop ...
K.S.B. Pump Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1984
Reported in: (1985)14ITD377(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1979-80.The assessee is a Public Limited Company, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pumps. The assessee had two manufacturing units, one at Pune and the other at Ahmednagar where there was a foundry. The third unit was being set up at Chinchwad in the calendar year 1978 with which we are concerned. That unit was a new division known as 'Power Project Division'. The assessee's claim for relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was partly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Against the rejection of the balance, the assessee has raised first ground in the memorandum of appeal. However, that ground was expressly given up by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal before us.2. In connection with the setting up of the unit at Chinchwad for manufacture of pumps, which are slightly different from the pumps already manufactured by the assessee, the assessee had borrowed large am...
Salal Hydro Electric Project Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC519Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-120/81M, dated 6-7-81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellant's refund claim of duty on shortlanded goods was rejected by the authorities below as unsubstantiated for non-production of documents such as BPT short-landing certificate.3. In their Revision Application filed on 29th September, 81, among other things the appellants stated that they had already applied for the short-landing certificate to the BPT authorities and that the same will be submitted immediately on receipt. After three long years, Shri Phadkar who appeared for the appellant submitted that the appellants could not get the short-landing certificate and having regard to the period to which it relates it would not be possible to produce the short-landing certificate. He however submitted that before the Asstt.Collector ...
Govind Shantaram Walavalkar Vs. Pandharinath Shivaram Rege
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom224; 1985(1)BomCR571; (1985)87BOMLR1; 1985MhLJ236
1. The present appeal unfolds a tragic tale of two friends showing that not only their initial friendship was fragile but after falling apart, one of them resorted to accusations shown to be false against the other. The case has its own sensitive facets both of fact and law. Those arise this way.2. The appellant filed a suit in tort seeking to recover compensation for defamation against the defendant. The act of defamation is the report (Ex. 35) lodged with the Police Station, Ambernath, on 25th March 1972. That alleged that the plaintiff was distilling alcohol and liquor in his house and was thus indulging in commission of cognizable offences. This information given to the police has been found to be false to the knowledge of the maker of the report.3. One the basis of the report, the Ambernath police proceeded to the house of the plaintiff and while the plaintiff was absent and only female-folks of the family were there, the police subjected the house to search and found nothing incr...
B. Jamasji Mistry (P.) Ltd. Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD546(Mum.)
1. The short question in these appeals, by the assessee, is whether the compass of Section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), covers the income from house property derived by virtue of a contract or licence.2. A building called 'Whitehall' situated in Gowalia Tank Road, Bombay, built in 1965 and owned by the assessee, is fetching income. A major portion of the building is in the occupation of the posts and telegraphs department. The assessee has granted the user of the building to parties on licence basis in consideration of licence fee payable by them.3. The impugned assessments span the accounting years 1976-77 to 1978-79. The primary authority (ITO) adopted the actual licence fee realised by the assessee as the norm for fixing the annual value for the purposes of assessing the income from house property under Section 22 of the Act in each of the years. The Commissioner (Appeals) set his seal of affirmance in the appeals by the assessee and refused to agree that the a...
Kekelwa Samuele Kongwa Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR742; (1985)87BOMLR24
Jahagirdar J.(Paras 1 to 13 not being material to this report are not reported herein)14. Mr. Jethmalani, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has further challenged the order of detention by contending that there are certain procedural irregularities and illegalities in the instant case. The procedural illegality on which Mr. Jethmalani has concentrated his attack is the denial of opportunity to the petitioner to plead his case before the Advisory Board in the manner permitted by law. In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Jethmalani in this regard it would be advantageous to notice the relevant provisions of law as well as the law declared by the Supreme Court on the question of the procedure which is to be followed by the Advisory Boards. Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act provides that -'A person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act, shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to ...
Union of India and Others Vs. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(20)ELT57(Bom)
Gadgil, J.1. The respondents in Miscellaneous Petition No. 496 of 1970 have preferred this appeal against the writ issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court directing the present appellant No. 2 not to enforce the impugned order whereunder the original petitioner was directed to file a bill entry under section 46 of the Customs Act, in connection with the import of the vessel, now known as 'Maratha Transhipper'. We would refer the parties not as appellants and respondents but as petitioners and respondents in the trial Court.2. Though in the trial Court a number of contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners and also the respondents, it is not necessary to consider all of them as only some or these contentions have been urged before us. We would, therefore, like to narrate a few facts that would be relevant for considering these contentions.3. On October 15, 1960, the petitioners imported as vessel in Mormugoa Port. The vessel was originally known as 'The Tropical ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Rajendra Moto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC155(Bom)
Kania, J.1. One question has been submitted to us for determination in this reference, on a case stated, by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The said question is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 36(3) as amended with effect from 11th May, 1973 regarding the rates at which the penalty is to be calculated will not apply but the old rates would apply when the tax including penalty was to be paid as per notice under section 38(4) on 23rd April, 1973 and not paid on that date but paid subsequently after 11th May, 1973 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the question referred to us are as follows :The respondent, Messrs. Rajendra Motors, is a firm registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The respondent was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer concerned for the period from 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1971 on 5th March,...
London Star Diamond Co. (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: 1989(23)LC652(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT47(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, where it appears to the Central Government that in respect of any goods manufactured in India and exported, a drawback should be allowed of customs duties on any imported materials, it may direct that drawback shall be allowed in respect of such goods. By a public notice dated 15th October 1971 the Central Government notified a Schedule of the materials entitled to drawback and the rates thereof.2. On 7th October 1977 Sub-Sr. No. 5804 of the Schedule was substituted to read thus:-------------------------------------------------------------------Sub-Sl.No. Description of goods Rate of draw- back--------------------------------------------------------------------5804 Cut and polished diamonds of 3% (Three per not less than 12 pieces per carat. cent only) of the f.o.b. value.---------------------------------------------------------------------Provided that -1. The above rate shall apply only to :-(i) the shipments made by the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »