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.
Natwarlal Arjunbhai Hamir Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2373Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-899/80 P, dated 16-10-80 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under : The appellant along with his wife and four minor children returned to India on 19-5-1980. All of them held Indian passports but were normal residents abroad. While returning they brought goods valued at Rs. 26795/- which consisted among other things a colour Video Cassette Recorder valued at Rs. 10,000/-, a colour T. V. set valued at Rs. 4,000/- and Video Cassette tapes (assorted) 26 in number valued at Rs. 6920/-. The Assistant Collector of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of the above three items on the ground that he does not consider the said items are for the bona fide use of the appellant or the members of his family. The reasons given by the A...
Additional First Income-tax Officer Vs. M. B. Rakhe.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD697(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri Y. R. Meena Judicial Member - This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the AAC dated 14-10-1982. The assessment year involved is 1979-80. The first issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the AAC has erred in treating the whole of the consideration received by the assessee on sale of machinery, furniture, fixture and stock-in-trade, etc., as goodwill and allowing the same to be exempt.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1 lakhs as price of machinery, furniture, fittings, stock-in-trade, etc., along with the goodwill of the business, and claimed before the ITO that the assessee has received Rs. 1 lakh on account of goodwill of the business, and, therefore, it is not taxable. The ITO did not agree with the claim of the assessee. He has taken the value of the goodwill at Rs. 12,500 and estimated the capital gains at Rs. 30,253. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the AAC. The AAC has considered ...
Automotive Refrigeration Co. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC59(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question submitted to us for determination in this reference is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expression 'the total amount of tax paid by the dealer for any year' used in the explanation to section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 did not include any amount paid by an assessee after filing of the returns but before passing of the assessment order ?'2. The facts giving rise to the said question are as follows :The applicant-firm, a registered dealer under the said Act, while filing its returns for the period 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1971 had claimed resales to the extent of Rs. 3,99,227. No tax was paid along with the returns. In the registers kept by the dealer, the resale quantum was shown at Rs. 2,93,268. Aft...
Pandurang Tukaram Rajkondawar Vs. Balaram Madhaorao Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Bom33; 1985MhLJ109
Paunikar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-landlord challenging the judgment dated 1-4-1982 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1978.2. The landlord filed an application on 4-10-1975 against the tenant respondent for permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under Cl.13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949 before the Rent Controller, Wani. His case under Cl.13(3)(i) was that the tenant had agreed to pay rent of every three months in advance at the rate of Rs.32/- p.m. On the date of the application, the tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 192/-. Under Cl.13(3)(ii) he has filed a schedule of payment of rent to show that rent was never paid as per agreement and submitted that the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. Under Cl.13(3)(vi) he contended that he was 56 years old and was due to retire shortly. He has no other house to reside except the suit houses in the city of Wani and hence he w...
H.S. Trivedi, Vs. Namdev Vishnu Kanalekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR303
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Factory premises at 164, Tulsi Pipe Road, Matunga, Bombay-400 016, and two shops being Nos. 16 and 5-A on the ground floor of Hari Niwas abutting Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim, Bombay, have been the subject matter of the present long drawn litigation. The premises at Tulsi Pipe Road, 18' x 36' formerly belonged to one Devidas and having been designed as a shed are used mainly as a factory rather than as a shop. This shed changed hands and when D. Rustom Ltd. were in possession of the same, Namdev Vishnu Kinalekar (Namdev) the plaintiff, took the premises sometime in 1951-52 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Namdev who had a mechanic's background had a large family of five sons and two daughters. He bought some shearing, metal cutting, drilling, binding machines, some hand presses, a spray printing machine, an electric over and set up a factory for the purposes manufacturing electrical equipments. The factory was well equipped with other accessories like vices, jacks, blowers...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Govardhandas Manmohandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC434(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Respondent M/s. Govardhandas Manmohandas is a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The business of the respondent consists of purchasing and selling pumping sets to agriculturists. The pumping sets have two components, viz., a pump and an oil engine. There is no dispute that the pumping sets sold by the respondent are agricultural machinery. The respondent, however, also sells to agriculturists parts of oil engines. It seems that the clients of the respondent who have purchased pumping sets from the respondent also purchased from the respondent replacements for the parts of the sets which get worn out. Such parts include parts of oil engines.2. In respect of the parts of oil engines which were sold by the respondent to the agriculturists under several bills, the respondent made an application dated 7th December, 1974, before the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 for determining whether the items referred to in the bills which were the...
Mackinon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2433Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-1012/79-M dated 10-1-80 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The Asstt. Collector of Customs after adjudication called upon the appellants to pay the penalty of Rs. 16223.99 under Section 116 of the Customs Act on the alleged short landing of the goods imported by M/s. Steel Industries of India. On appeal, the Appellate Collector observed that the penalty was levied on shortages noticed during survey which was held under Customs supervision. The shortages occurred due to the denting of 239 drums and damage to 3 drums before the same were landed. As the drums were dented and damaged before the landing and as the survey was held under Customs supervision, the action taken by the Asstt. Collector was maintainable and on this reasoning the learned Collector (Appeals) rejected their appeal.3. Duri...
Eastern Agencies and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC50
Bharucha, J.1. This petition seeks to quash on order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The decision of the petition depends upon the interpretation placed on the phrase own or holds' in s. 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Section 23EE thereof provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court only on questions of law from any decision or order of the Appellate Board. This is a matter in which an appeal ought to have been filed. I am, however, unable to uphold the preliminary objection upon this ground because the petition has been entertained and heard and there is some doubt as to whether the appeal would now be entertained : Hirday Narain v. ITO : [1970]78ITR26(SC) .2. The first petitioners carry on business as indenting agents of foreign manufacturers of drugs and chemicals. They place orders with foreign manufacturers for the supply of drugs and chemicals to Indian purchasers. The first petitioners are paid commission by the foreign manufact...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Nathalal Shivlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC184(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Bombay Sales Tax Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question submitted to us for determination in the reference is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent-assessee was entitled to the benefit of resale claim under section 8(ii) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 corresponding to his purchases of Rs. 83,306 effected from Kamala Mills Ltd. and setting aside the reassessment order ?'2. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows :The respondent is a partnership firm registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer concerned assessed the respondent under section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act for the period from 10th November, 1969 to 31st October, 1970 on 5th May, 1971. Thereafter,...
Raverdy Marc Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1984
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2398Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal CD. (Bom) Appeal No. 264/84. It came up for consideration on 2nd August, 1984. None represented the applicant on that date. But then after hearing Shri Krishan Kumar, the learned Departmental Representative and considering the averments made in the application, it was rejected on the ground that no cause much less sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal between the period January and March, 1984. Subsequently by Misc. Application No. 138/84, the applicant prayed for restoration of the application for condonation of delay and also the appeal which was rejected as barred by time. This application came up for consideration before my learned Brother Shri Gaurishankar Murthy, Member (Judicial). The learned Member in his wisdom but after great pains thought fit to set aside the order dated 2-8-1984 and restored the application for condonation and also the appeal which was dismissed as barred by ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›