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.
Shalibai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom325
ORDER1. A short but subtle point involved in this writ petitions is about the valldity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amending) Act, 1976, Maharashtra Act No. 26 of 1976 (for short the Amending Act'). Briefly, the facts are that the surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short s.L.D. T) by its order dated 23-3-1976 passed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'the ceiling Act'), held that the total holding of the petitioners is 84.61 acres and since the petitioner is entitled to hold 54 acres of land, the S.L.D.T. declared 30.61 acres of land as surplus belonging to the petitioners. The surplus land was surrendered to the State Government , which took possession of the same after the period of appeal was over.2. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur division, Nagppur, acting under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, decided to revise the order of the S.L.D.T. in the ceiling case No. 389|60-A(5)|1975-76, village Id...
SaThe Biscuits and Chocolate Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR360; 1984(2)ECC171; 1984(17)ELT39(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The question which has been seriously debated in this petition is whether the petitioner, which is a company, is entitled to a deduction on account of secondary packing, namely, the tin containers and the wooden and corrugated boxes in which packets of biscuits manufactured by the petitioner company are packed.2. The petitioner company manufactures biscuits, chocolates and other cocoa products which are admittedly liable to excise duty under Tariff Items 1C and 1A under the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Excise Act'). On 4th January, 1983 a demand notice was issued to the petitioner company by the Excise Department that company had not paid duty on the cost of secondary packing such as tins, corrugated boxes and wooden boxes, etc. used by them for packing of biscuits and, therefore, the petitioner company was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,27,031.97 as basic excise duty and Rs. 6351.34 as special excise duty. The correctness of this demand ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)329; [1986]159ITR756(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN119(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the following questions of law have been referred to us for determination :Re : Assessment year 1963-64.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief/rebate under sections 85, 99(1)(iv), 101(2) and 235 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on gross dividends, that is, without reducing them by proportionate management or other expenses ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief on the entire portion of tax-free dividend from the State Financial Corporation, that is, without reducing it by proportionate management or other expenses ?'Re : Assessment Year 1964-65 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under sections 85, 99(1)(iv), 101(2) and 235 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross dividends, that is, without reducing them...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Braithwaite and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)386; [1986]159ITR772(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1965-66, for which the relevant previous year was the one ending on March 31, 1965. During that year, the assessee sold 1,50,000 shares of Braithwaite and Company (India) Limited, and one of the disputes was regarding the computation of the capital gains arising to the assessee on that sale. The Income-tax Officer computed those gains at Rs. 25,49,538. On an appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the quantum of capital gains to Rs. 20,07,728. While giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and determining the tax due, the Income-tax Officer changed the basis of computing the relief in respect of the dividend income of the assessee. In the original assessment order, the Income-tax Officer had adopted the basis of the tax rate ...
Bhansidhar Ganesh Ram Bhaiyyalal Vs. Municipal Council Deoli and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1984
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ107Bom; 1985MhLJ980
Dhabe, J.1. Both the facets of the principles of natural justice viz., that the delinquent cannot be condemned unheard and that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause are in issue before us in this petition.2. The facts giving rise to the questions urged in this petition are that the petitioner, who was in the service of the Municipal Council, Deoli, since 23rd April, 1956 and was during the relevant time working as an Octroi Inspector, was chargesheeted for misconduct on 10th September, 1979. It appears from the chargesheet that the said chargesheet was issued to him by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council. An Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. It is, however, relevant to state at this stage that the Chief Officer was not a member of the Enquiry Committee constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the chargesheet whereafter the evidence was recorded by th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mahendra A. Patel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD239(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the Controller is against the Appellate Controller's order dated 11-1-1983 in the estate duty proceedings on the death of late Shri Ambalal B. Patel. It raises the following issue: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Appellate Controller of Estate Duty-cum-Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay, has erred in deleting the value of self-occupied property thrown into common hotchpot of the HUF of the deceased holding that Sections 9, 10, 13, 29, etc., are not applicable.2. Records disclose that Shri Ambalal Patel passed away on 9-7-1976. As his accountable person Shri Mahendra Patel, his son, filed an account of the estate on 15-5-1977. The account as filed declared the principal value of the estate passing on death a sum of Rs. 1,09,277. In terms of his order dated 22-7-1981 the Assistant Controller computed the principal value of estate at an amount of Rs. 8,62,734. Against the assessment as made, the accountable person filed an appeal on...
Addl. Second Income-tax Officer Vs. C.J. Shah
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD151(Mum.)
2. For the assessment year 1967-68, the ITO made an addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources and started penalty proceedings. He levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). This was cancelled by the AAC.Hence, the departmental appeal for this year.3. The ITO made the addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources for the reason that a loan allegedly taken of Rs. 10,000 was not satisfactorily explained. It would appear that this amount was shown as a liability to the assessee's wife. When asked to explain the loan the assessee represented that the monies given by his wife were received by her from her father. Subsequently, by filing a revised balance sheet the assessee claimed that he had paid Rs. 10,000 to his wife in 1966 which was returned by her on 3-2-1967. This was the amount which was the subject-matter of dispute. The earlier explanation was stated to be on account of oversight. The ITO disbelieving...
Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD882(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee-company, Indian Rare Earths Ltd., against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), in this case for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The main contention in these appeals is common to both the assessment years and involves basically the same facts. Both the appeals were, therefore, heard together, consolidated and disposed of by one single order for the sake of convenience.2. The common ground of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the ITO was justified in disallowing the interest paid by the assessee to the Government of India on the loan obtained by the assessee-company for its Orissa project.3. The facts of the case relevant to the aforesaid common ground may be summarised as under: The assessee-company, Indian Rare Earths Ltd., is a public sector undertaking, which carries on the business of extracting from beach sands by separation method, minerals such as ilmenite, monazite, rutile, zircon, silli...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii, Bombay Vs. Steel Plant Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)243; [1984]149ITR294(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN301(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar J.1. The assessee is a company carrying on business as manufacture of furnaces, factory ovens, etc. The assessment years under consideration are 1966-67 to 1969-70.2. On March 1, 1965 the assessee entered into a licensing and technical assistance agreement with M/s. Westinghouse Electric International Co. of U.S.A. for the manufacture of special types of heavy duty industrial fans for a period of ten years. The licensees were granted an exclusive licence to manufacture such fans india. The licences were non-divisible, non-transferable and non-assignable. The agreement provided for giving technical assistances and know-how in respect of its manufacture. Under the terms of the agreement, the assessee had to use certain drawings, specifications, etc., for the manufacture of these items for a limited number of years. After considering the various clause of the agreement, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under the agreement the assessee did not get a benefit which ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-viii Vs. Sitadevi N. Poddar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)179; [1984]148ITR506(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN345(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and to refer to us for our determination, the following three question :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the silver utensils sold by the assessee were not capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the profits received on sale of silver utensils were not liable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 ?(3) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable for assessment for assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The facts giving rise to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »