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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR763(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The common question of law referred to us for determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the annual payment of Rs. 22,725 equivalent of 1,250 paid by the assessee company to the U. K. Company under the agreement dt. 19-5-1964, was an expenditure of a revenue nature allow able in the computation of the assessee's income for each of the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?'The other question which was referred at the instance of the assessee is as follows :'Whether, the sum of Rs. 1,02,852.70 paid by the assessee to the company up to 31-12-1966 under the agreement dt. 19-5-1964, was to be treated as part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery qualifying for depreciation thereon for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the reference can be stated shortly, as there is no serious dispute regarding the decision of the questions regardi...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-i, Bombay Vs. East India Cotto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR274(Bom); 1990TAXLR316
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioners have prayed that the Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer to this court the following two questions of law as set out in paragraph 5 of the application :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of gratuity liability estimated by the assessee at Rs. 1,26,495 but not debited in the books of account for the previous year of the 1973-74 assessment did give rise to a debatable issue in spite of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC , and its specific prohibition of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since admittedly the conditions laid down had not been fulfilled ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to rectify th...
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Shamroa Maskar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom327; 1984(2)BomCR660
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred under sub-sec. (2) of s. 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to challenge the legality of the order Dt. Aug. 30, 1976 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark granting the application of the respondents for registration of a trade mark consisting of a rectangular label with the word 'SONY' appearing in the upper portion of the rectangle, letter 'M' in small circle in the middle portion of the rectangle and a device of a flower basket just above the rectangle, in respect of 'Nail Polish' in Class 3.2. The respondents filed Application No. 257701-B under sub-sec, (1) of S. 18 of the Act for registration of the mark on June 27, 1969, in part 'A' of the Registrar. The petitioners filed their objection to the registration of the mark on the ground that the word 'SONY' constituting the leading feature of the mark submitted for registration is phonetically equivalent to a common surname 'SONI' and i...
Smt. Jayashree Ramesh Londhe Vs. Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom302; 1984(1)BomCR586; (1983)86BOMLR184; 1984MhLJ308
B.C. Gadgil, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the wife against the dismissal of the petition filed by her and the respondent (the husband) under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting a divorce by mutual consent.2. The marriage between the partiestook place on 12-3-1981. It appears that they lived together till 24th June 1981. The wife thereafter filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 59 of 1982 against the husband for divorce. Divorce was claimed on many grounds including that of cruelty. Of course, there was also an alternative prayer for judicial separation. There is no dispute that on 12-7-1982 the said petition was withdrawn by the wife. In the application for withdrawal it is stated that she may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file separate petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Advocate for the husband made an endorsement of 'no objection'. The Court thereafter passed a formal order about the withdrawal of the petition.3. On the very day, i.e. on ...
Prakash Waman Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR573
Sharad Manohar, J.1. These four petitions have been filed by one common petitioner Prakash Waman Shinde. His grievance is about the incident dated 22nd August, 1983 in which three police officers, that is to say, one Inspector of Police, a sub-inspector of Police and a Police Constable allegedly caught hold of the petitioner who had parked his auto-rickshaw at the lawful place and hauled him up to the Police Station at about 8.30 a.m. on that date, arrested him quite illegally, kept him in the police lock-up till 8.30 p.m. concocted some trumped up charges against him, made him shell out a total sum of Rs. 800/- as deposits at the Police Station by way of bail and released him thereafter only to have the said amount of Rs. 800/- forfeited by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the next day in the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.2. The facts out of which this present petition arises can be gathered only from the averments made in the petition. So far as the record of the l...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mills Stores Trading Co. (India) Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Bom)5
: Kania, J. - This is an application u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the ITAT to state a case and to refer to this court for determination the four questions set out therein. In our view, it is not necessary those questions turn on the basis of controversy as to whether an amount of Rs. 26,112 should be allowed to be deducted out of the assessees total income for the purposes of the assessment. The said sum was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of secret commission paid by the assessee to employees of various Mills for purchasing the goods of the assessee.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the assessee carries on the business of supplying mills stores to various Mills. The assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 26,112 by way of secret commission paid to the employees of various mills who had purchased goods from the assessee. The ITO disallowed the sum of Rs. 26,112 on the ground that the fact of payment and its nexus with the business of t...
Kashinath Tukaram Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR563
Vaze, J.1. Can a statement made by a person who is dead as respects the circumstances resulting in the death of another and his own be a relevant fact in proceedings in which the cause of death of that another comes into question ?2. Khanna, Tatya alias Nana and Kashya were neighbours, Khanna and Kashya staying in Group No. 7 and Nana in the adjoining Group No. 6 of Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli, Bombay. Tagore Nagar is a group of chawls located westwards of a 24 feet wide Ramakant Deshmukh Road under the jurisdiction of Vikhroli Police Station. A 18' tar road bisects the Nagar with chawl Nos. 65 and 57 on its south and chawl Nos. 66 and 58 towards north. A flour mill on the road caters to the need of the residents. Near the open space to the north is situated the cemetery.3. On 30th July 1978 at about 1 p.m. P.W. 3 Gautam who works in Vikhroli Cemetery, was proceeding towards the cemetery - place of his work as usual. He found the trio Khanna, Nana and Kashya talking in agitated moods near t...
Jankibai P. Kulkarni and ors. and Pramilabai Vishnu Sakharam Dikshit a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR66
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. Eight persons, who are the widows of the servants of the Government of Maharashtra who retired from service before 1-1-1964, addressed a letter to the learned Chief Justice of this Court complaining of what they regarded as the discrimination perpetrated by the Government of Maharashtra against them in the light of the liberalised Family Pension Scheme which has been brought into force on 1st of January, 1964. The said letter is dated 11th of October, 1983, which means it has been addressed to the learned Chief Justice nearly twenty years after the liberalised Family Pension Scheme came into force. This letter was obviously prompted by the judgment of the Supreme Court, to which we will take reference shortly. The learned Chief Justice directed that the said letter be treated as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly it is numbered as Writ Petition No. 3749 of 1983. The eight signatories to the letter are, therefore, the petitioners ...
Podar Mills Ltd. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas11(Bom)
Parekh J.1. This judge's summons dated January 19, 1984, has been taken out by the applicants for an order that all further proceedings in Company Petition No. 352 of 1983 be stayed, and for an order that the respondents be restrained by an order and injuction from taking any further steps in Company Petition No.352 of 1983 including advertising the notice of the hearing of the petition, and for such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper. The respondents have resisted the summons.2. At the hearing of this matter, Mr. Kapadia, the learned counsel for the applicants, argued that a company petition being Petition No. 352 of 1983 was filed by the respondents against the applicants. At the stage of admission, consent terms were filed , where under the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,11,798.47 by monthly installments. The first monthly installments was payable on September 20, 1983, and the subsequent installments were to be paid on 20th of each succeeding month....
income-tax Officer Vs. Hrishikesh Family Trust No. 1
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD497(Mum.)
1. This appeal filed by the department and the cross-objection filed by the assessee are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a private trust assessed in the status of an AOP.The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1980-81. The relevant previous year was the year ended 31-12-1979.3. The assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 128. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold some shares which were the corpus of the trust and realised capital gains of Rs. 8,064. The case of the assess was that this capital gain of Rs 8,064 was not liable to capital gains tax because Section 80T(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') (as it stood then) exempts capital gains from tax if the gross total income of the assessee did not, exceed Rs. 10,000. The income of the assessee during the year consisted of Rs. 9,750 from dividend and Rs. 8,092 from capital gains. There was an item of expense being audit fees of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »