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.
Gitanjali Electronics Vs. H.R. Amarnani, Asstt. Collr. of C.E.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT531(Bom)
1. The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm. It is a small scale industry manufacturing radio sets as its industrial unit at Cotton Green, Bombay. The 2nd petitioner supplies to the 1st petitioner various components parts which go into the manufacture of the radios. Out of these the 1st petitioner supplies to the 3rd respondent several parts which go into the formation of panels. The 3rd respondent, after assembling the panels from the parts supplied by the 1st petitioner, sends the panels to the 1st petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner, using the panels and various parts supplied by the 2nd petitioner, assembles the radios.2. On 2nd July 1977 a notification was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempting radios falling under Item 33A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, of a value not exceeding Rs. 165/- per set from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The proviso thereof reads thus :'Provided that the sets are manuf...
Ajanta Travels (India) and anr. Vs. Tayebali Alibhai Petiwala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC413
Vaze, J.1. The short question in this appeal relates to the operation of the amendment effected to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the Amending Act, 56 of 1969, which came into force on 2-3-1970.2. By this amendment the upper limit of Rs. 20,000/- in all where the vehicle is registered to carry more than 30 but not more than 60 passengers which was imposed under Sub-section (2)(b)(ii) of Section 95 was raised to Rs. 50,000/- (SIC) with effect from 2-3-1970.3. As a result of an accident to bus No. MRT 1998 which was carrying about 69 picnickers along G.B. Road on 25th October 1970. 7 persons died and another 8 were injured. claims were preferred before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay, which awarded compensations. Respondent No. 1 Tayebali Alibhai Petiwala was awarded compensation of Rs. 7,000/- against the insurance company as well as others. Though the judgment does not make any mention about the apportionment of the liabilities between the insuran...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi, Bombay Vs. Industrial and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)382; [1985]151ITR357(Bom); [1984]18TAXMAN343(Bom)
Kanta J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to the court for determination the following question and to state a case for that purpose :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the additional bonus of Rs. 1,75,650 agreed on January 21, 1977, by negotiation to be paid in relation to the accounting year 1974-75, over and above the minimum bonus at 4% debited in the accounts for that year on account of the net loss incurred, was deductible, without considering the limitation in the first proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It is only necessary to set out very few facts. The relevant accounting period is from October 1, 1974, to September 30, 1975, and the assessment year in question is 1976-77. The assessee maintained books of account on mercantile basis. In the books of account, during the rel...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: [1985]153ITR733a(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to us for determination of the questions set out therein and to state a case for that purpose.2. The assessment years in question are the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It is not necessary to set out the questions in detail because the only two questions regarding which the rule has been issued is as to whether the plant and machinery installed in the tyre-cord project of the assessee-respondent is covered by item No. 20 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as to whether the brokerage paid by the assessee should be allowed as a deduction. The questions, as framed, are as to whether the Income-tax Tribunal was right in its decision in favour of the assessee on these questions. The assessee has produced before us the earlier order of the Tribunal on the same questions in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 by way of an annexure to the affidavit of Trikkur Sitar...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-ii Vs. Godrej and Boyce Manufa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)181; [1984]149ITR594(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for asking the Tribunal to state a case and raise the following questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, in the absence of any evidence of the service rendered to the assessee for which the payment of Rs. 3,59,969 styled as commission to agent was paid to M/s. Khimji Ramdas of Muscat, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount did not represent trade discount in respect of direct sale to the firm on its own so that weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was due to it ? (2) Without prejudice to the above question, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the allowance of weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of expenditure of Rs. 3,59,969 claimed as commission to its agent M/s. Khimji Ramdas of Muscat ? (3) Whether...
Y.V. Thatte Vs. State and Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR285; [1986(52)FLR28]; (1985)IILLJ471Bom; 1984MhLJ1019
Chandurkar, C.J.1. This petition has been placed before this Full Bench because the Division Bench which heard this petition took the view that there is a conflict between the decision of the Division Bench in Shankar Atram v. Chief Conservator of Forest 1977 M LJ 536 and the other decision of the Division Bench in Nathu v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division 1983 M LJ 1108 and that this conflict needs to be resolved in the light of the three decisions of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab : [1979]3SCR518 , Union of India v. N. E. Reddy : (1980)ILLJ7SC and Brij Biharilal v. High Court of M.P. : (1982)ILLJ1SC . In Shankar's case (supra) the Division Bench took the view that the absence of communication of adverse remarks to a public servant does not prevent the authorities from taking the confidential reports into consideration while determining the suitability or otherwise of the Government servant for promotion and that when a person has been provisionally promoted subjec...
Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Fianance Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. V. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom419; 1984(2)BomCR324; (1983)86BOMLR321; 1984MhLJ297
Jahagirdar, J.1. The first petitioner is the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society having its registered office in Bombay and business in other parts of Maharashtra. The second and third petitioners are the office-bears of the first petitioner. For the purpose of the disposal of this petition we will refer only to the first petitioner as the petitioner and it will hereinafter be referred to also s 'the petitioner Society'.2. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent', was employed by the petitioner-society sometime in the year 1976. He became the manager of a branch of the petitioner Society at Aurangabad. When he was holding this officer his services were terminated by an order dt. 4th Feb. 1981. The respondent made an attempt to get reinstated by approaching the Commissioner for co-operative and there were pursuant need be made here. Ultimately the registrar of co-operative societies by his order dt. 5th April 1982 held that the dispute relating to t...
The Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. Vs. V.S. Lon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR321
Jahagirdar, J.1. The first petitioner is the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society having its registered office in Bombay and business in other parts of Maharashtra. The second and third petitioners are the office-bearers of the first petitioner. For the purpose of the disposal of this petition we will refer only to the first petitioner as the petitioner and it will hereinafter be referred to also as 'the petitioner-society'.2. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent', was employed by the petitioner-society sometime in the year 1976. He became the manager of a branch of the petitioner-society at Aurangabad. When he was holding this office his services were terminated by an order dated February 4, 1981. The respondent made an attempt to get reinstated by approaching the Commissioner for Co-operation and there were pursuant to that approach certain proceedings between the parties to which no reference need be made here. Ultimately the Registrar of Co-o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)339
ORDER : Kania, J. - This is an application u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the ITAT to refer to this court for determination of the two questions set out therein and for stating a case for that purpose.2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, we find that the same is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT, Bombay City-VI v. Sadabhakti Prakashan Printing Press (P) Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 376 . In view of this decision, that question must obviously be decided in favour of the assessee and there is no point in directing the Tribunal to refer that question to us for determination.3. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has referred to its two earlier orders in respect of earlier assessments in the case of the same assessee and in those orders all the evidence produced including the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, authorising the payment of secret commission and the conditions in the trade of selling Dyes and Chemicals, which the Tr...
Trustees of Shree Market Silk Vs. Seventh Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD833(Mum.)
1. The assessments were made 00 this assessee in the status of an AOP for the above assessment years. The assessee's claim for grant of exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was rejected by the ITO on the ground that the benefits of the assessee-trust are not open to the public in general but are restricted to the children of the employees of the members of Shree Market Silk Merchants' Association. He relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Zenith Tin Works Charitable Trust v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 119. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the ITO's order. Thus, appeals are filed before the Tribunal for all these years. There are no appeals for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1979-80 because, it is pointed out, there was no demand of tax for these years.2. The Shree Market Silk Merchants' Association is an AOP in existence for a long time for the purpose of looking after the interest of the silk industry and the silk merchants. This institutio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »