Mumbai Court February 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.
Baboobhai Patel and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1984
Reported in: 1989(21)LC57(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. On 21st January 1980 the petitioners imported a consignment of Sorbitol Liquid 70%, U.S.P. At the time of clearance thereof the petitioners pointed out to the Customs authorities that the goods were used in the preparation of pharmaceutical formulations and, as such, were exempted from countervailing duty by reason of Notification No. 55/75. By an order dated 22nd March 1980, the Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods to countervailing duty. The petitioners filed an appeal. On 25th July 1980 the Appellate Collector of Customs allowed the appeal and directed refund of the countervailing duty which had been collected.2. In the meantime, the petitioners imported four other consignments of the goods and countervailing duty was levied and paid thereon. By their Refund Application dated 31st July 1980 the petitioners applied for refund of the countervailing duty collected and based the claim for refund upon the appellate order dated 25th July 1980. On 30th October 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Devichand Uttamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)396; [1984]148ITR530(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN1(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The respondent (assessee) has not been served in this reference. It appears that the notice of the reference was prepared and lodged with the sheriff for service, but there is nothing further to show whether the service has been effected on the respondent. Normally, we would not have proceeded to hear the reference on merits. However, we do so, as it is conceded by Mr. Joshi that the questions raised in this reference are covered against the Department by two decisions of Division Benches of this court.2. The reference is on a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The questions referred to us for determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the havala entries of Rs. 38,000 in the respective partners' accounts in the assessee-firm's books constitutes evidence in support of the gift made to various persons in view of the provisio...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Vs. Gangadas Topandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)175; [1984]150ITR437(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN372(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :The ITO concerned completed the assessment of the respondent for the assessment year 1968-69 on July 31, 1969, on a total income of Rs. 32,820 which included an undisclosed income of Rs. 5,000. In the order of assessment, the ITO noted that penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated. The ITO referred the case to the IAC under s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act on June 28, 1971, as the minimum amount of penalty impossible in the case exceeded the sum of Rs. 1,000. He simultaneously informed the assessee that he had referred the case to the IAC. The IAC issued a notice to the assessee on July 16, 1971, under s. 274(1) read with s. 271 of the I.T. Act to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271(1)(c), fixing the date of hearing on July 20, 1971. He ultimately imposed a penalty ...
Dattatraya Gopal Shette Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona Range, P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)393; [1984]150ITR460(Bom); [1985]18TAXMAN434(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and it relates to the assessment year 1961-62.2. The assessee-firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated November 14, 1953. The partnership consisted of three partners, Shankar Dattatray, Sambha Dattatray and Baburao Nagnath. Two minors, Pramod Kumar and Vijaykumar, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment years prior to 1961-62, the assessee-firm was allowed registration by the ITO concerned.3. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee-firm filed an application for renewal of registration. This application for renewal of registration was made under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and it was filed on June 21, 1961. It was signed by the three partners, Shankar Dattatray, Sambha Dattatray and Baburao Nagnath. It seems that during the relevant assessment year, Pramodkumar had become a major and had elected to become a partner of the assessee-firm. Henc...
Lallubhai Amichand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Ci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)390; [1985]151ITR212(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessment years under reference are 1964-65 and 1966-67, and the relevant previous years are Samvat years 2019 and 2021, respectively. Out of its profits for the accounting year, which is S.Y. 2018 (ended on October 28, 1962), the assessee had set apart a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs as provision for taxation. The assessee had also in addition set apart for that year a sum of Rs. 5,36,000 as 'Reserve for tax contingency'.2. In S. Y. 2020 (ended on November 4, 1964), the assessee had transferred a sum of Rs. 8,25,000 as provision for taxation. It had also shown a sum of Rs. 4,30,164 as 'reserve for tax contingency'. No part of the amount of Rs. 5,36,000 or Rs. 4,30,164 shown for the relevant years as aforesaid had been utilised for tax payment. The ITO did not include the said amounts of Rs. 5,36,000 and Rs. 4,30,164 in the computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, without giving any reasons. The AAC, before wh...
Chaware Oil Industries and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom160
Mohta, J.1. Since in this batch of 15 petitions, common questions are involved, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are cotton-seed dealers and/or crushers who purchase cotton-seed for their business. Various Market Committees constituted under S.11 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1963 (' the APM Act' for short) issued notices to the petitioners demanding on the transactions of purchase of cotton-seed, market-fee and supervision charges respectively in terms of S. 31 and Chap IV-A of the APM Act read with R. 32 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1967 ('the APM Rules' for short). The validity of these demands is questioned in these petitions.3. The necessary factual as well as legal back ground may be noticed first. In the State of Maharashtra exists the Maharashtra raw Cotton (Procurement, Process and Marketing) Act, 1971 (' the RC Act' for short). It provides for ...
Zacarias Durate Dmoingos Pereira Vs. Camilo Inacil Evaristo Pereira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom295
ORDER1. Once Inventory proceedings are determined by final order, what procedure is to be followed for execution of the final order of the Inventory is the moot question raised in this case: whether proceedings lie of under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or those Articles Procedure Code, 1908 or those Articles of Portuguese Civil P.C. outside Chapter XVII still govern such proceeding.2. By the im;ugned Order dated 22nd November, 1983 the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in execution taken in Inventory No. 35|72 under Portuguese Civil P.C. directed the Bailiff to evict the petitioner and restore possession of the house to the respondent to whom it is allotted by the final order made in the Inventory.3............... commenced before the Civil Judge, Mapusa. The final order in the said Inventory bears the date of 29th November. 1982. This final order represents the allotment of the assets of the late Tomas Pereira as made in the chart of partition and distribution of assets lefts le...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation have filed Revision Application dated 13-7-81 against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-44/80 Oil dated 30-12-1980/24-1-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which has been transferred to this Tribunal and is being considered as an appeal.On 4-1-80 the appellants were granted permission by the Assistant Collector of Customs to transfer 200.00 metric tonnes of Bright Stock Product which had already been warehoused from IOBL Storage Tank No.S-3 at Trombay to HPC(VMU) Storage Tank No. 215 located at Hay Bunder Installation, Sewree, by road through tank lorries. During the course of transfer operations one of their tank lorries loaded with 9.301 MTs.of the goods met with an accident. As a result of this unavoidable accident the tank plate got ruptured and the entire product of 9.801 MTs. was spilled over the road. The appellants have stated that they reported this matter to the Central Excise Officials supervising the receipt of bonded cargo at H...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iv Vs. Batliboi and Co. Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)388; [1984]149ITR604(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN299(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar J.1. This is reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It pertains to the assessment year 1969-70. The facts as set out in the statement of the case are as follows :The assessee is a dealer in machinery. It has been the practice of the assessee-company to take deposits from intending purchasers of machinery, which deposits are later adjusted towards the purchase price of the machinery that is sold. The surplus deposits, if any, are generally refunded to the customers. The assessee is occasionally unable to refund some of the excess deposits because of various reasons such as non-availability of the current address of the customers etc. For the relevant assessment year 1969-70, such excess deposits which the assessee was unable to refund to its customers, amounting to Rs. 17,691, were written off in the books of the assessee-company by transferring them to the profit and loss account.2. It was the assessee's contention that the amount of Rs. 17,691 does not repr...
Corn Products Co. (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC240; 1984(16)ELT177(Bom)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business manufacturing food-stuffs. The second petitioner is a share holder of the company. The squashes and syrups manufactured by the company in its factory are first bottled in glass bottles, but for the purposes of easy handling and transport, the squash and syrup bottles are placed in corrugated boxes which admittedly serve as secondary packing. These corrugated boxes are not manufactured by the petitioner company but purchased from the open market. According to the company, these corrugated boxes are returnable to the company by the wholesalers and an account of the returned corrugated boxes is maintained by the company. The boxes are of a durable nature, according to the company, inasmuch as once they are returned by the wholesalers, they are used again for the purposes of secondary packing of the consignments of squashes and syrups.2. The Assistant Collect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »