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.
Noronha Private Limited Vs. National Film Development Corporation Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1990(26)LC409(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners are distributors and exhibitors of cinematographic films (now referred to as 'films'). The question raised in the petition is whether they are actual users of films within the meaning of the Import Policy, 1978-79. The import of films is canalised by that policy through the first respondent.2. On 16th August 1978 the petitioners applied for the import of eight foreign feature films. They declared that 'the goods for the allotment of which this application has been made are meant for use in our own establishment at the above mentioned address for the distribution.' They further declared that 'if the goods are allocated to us, the same shall be utilised only in our factory/premises/establishments for the distribution/screening as indicated above...' On 26th September 1978 the first respondent informed the petitioners that it could only import films for distribution by itself and not for distribution by others. The petitioners then approached the 2nd respond...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rex Commercial Corporation Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Bom)177
: M. H. Kania, J. - This is an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Only one question is sought to be directed to be referred to this court for its opinion in this application. As far as the said question pertains to s. 41(1) of the IT Act, the answer must be clearly against the department in view of the decision of this court in CIT, Bombay City-IV v. Sadabhakti Prakashan Printing Press (P) Ltd. It was held in that case that in order that an amount may be income under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961, there must be a remission or cessation of the liability in respect of the amount. The benefit contemplated by the section must be by way of 'remission or cessation of liability' and no other benefit is contemplated. The transfer of an entry in the accounts is a unilateral act and does not bring about the cessation of the liability of the debtor. Hence the appropriation of an amount by reversal of the entry in P&L; A/c for the year concerned cannot be brought to tax as a benefit ...
Pendurang Waman Shinde Vs. the Executive Engineer, Building and Constr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC262
Patel, J.1. Appellant Pendurang, who was in the employment with the respondent Executive Engineer, Building and Construction Department, Khamgaon, as a black-smith in the work-shop at Khamgaon, suffered an injury to the right eye and as a result thereof he lost his vision. The Civil Surgeon, Buldhana certified that the right eye of the appellant has become permanently blind. As a consequence of this injury even the left eye was affected and there was every possibility of the appellant going blind. On 5th April 1973, a notice was served through Union claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 9800/- and medical expenses. Since there was no response to the notice, the appellant filed his claim for compensation before the Authority appointed under the Workman's Compensation Act.2. The respondent refuted the claim on various grounds. They pleaded that if at all such injury was caused as alleged, the appellant could not have worked after 26-12-1971. No notice was given by the appellant for the ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii Vs. Jupiter General ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR454; [1984]55CompCas695(Bom); [1984]147ITR405(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act').2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows :3. In 1951 the assessee-respondent, the Jupiter General Insurance Company Limited, Bombay, carried on the business, inter alia, of life insurance. Although the Life Insurance Corporation has been brought on record as the respondent in the circumstances set out hereinafter for the sake of convenience per propose to refer to the said Jupiter General Insurance. Co. Ltd., as the assessee. In 1951 the Central Govt. appointed an administrator to manage the affairs of the assessee under the direction and control of the Controller of Insurance under s. 52A of the Insurance Act, 1938. Till October 5, 1956, the administrator of the assessee carried on life insurance business as well as general insurance business. In 1956 the Central Govt. nationalised the business of life insurance, but it did not take ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Godrej and Boyc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)370; [1985]151ITR496(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'), for directing the Tribunal to refer to this court for determination of the question set out hereinafter and to make a statement of a case for that purpose. The question sought to be referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer under s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74, and in not sustaining it even to the extent of the excess of the allowance received by the two directors above the undisputed limit under section 40(c) of the said Act, namely, the excess over Rs. 72,000 in each case, of Rs. 16,987 and Rs. 16,987 equal to Rs. 33,974 ?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessment of the assessee was completed under s. 143(3) of the said Act for the assessment year 1973-74. In respect of the three directors, the ITO di...
Wardhaman Printing Press and Ors. Vs. Employee's State Insurance Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR454; (1984)86BOMLR251
V.V. Vaze, J.1. M/s. Wardhaman Printing Press ('Press') at Sholapur, a partnership concern, applied under section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act') to the Employees' State Insurance Court and the Labour Court ('Insurance Court') for a declaration that they are not a factory within the meaning of section 2(12) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Insurance Court and hence this appeal.2. The sheet anchor of the applicants case is that applications Nos. 2 and 3, Prakash and Kumud who are partners in the press could not be called 'Persons who were employed for wages' within the meaning of the expression as used in section 2(12) of the Act inasmuch as they being partners could not be employed by themselves.3. It appears that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 have been supervising the work of the firm, executing orders, keeping accounts and in return applicant No. 2 Prakash received a remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per annum from 1961 to 1968 which was raised ...
Wardhaman Printing Press Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR251a
Vaze, J.1. M/s. Wardhaman Printing Press ('Press') at Sholapur, a partnership concern, applied under Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('Act') to the Employees' State Insurance Court and the Labour Court ('Insurance Court') for a declaration that they are not a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Insurance Court and hence this appeal.2. The sheet anchor of the applicant's case is that applicants Nos. 2 and 3, Prakash and Kumud who are partners in the press could not be called 'persons who were employed for wages' within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 2(12) of the Act inasmuch as they being partners could not be employed by themselves.3. It appears that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 have been supervising the work of the firm, executing orders, keeping accounts and in return applicant No. 2 Prakash received a remuneration at the rate of Rs. 1.800/- per annum from 1961 to 1968 which was raised to 3.0...
Premier Synthetic Processors Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1990(27)LC65(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The Petitioners Process man-made Fabrics. On 22nd June, 1974 the goods of the petitioners were seized under Rule 52A and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. On 11th December, 1974 they were served with a notice to show cause. It alleged that the petitioners had contravened the said two rules and they were asked to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated, duty thereon should not be demanded and recovered, and penalty should not be imposed. The petitioners showed cause on 11th January, 1975. On 8th May, 1975 the Collector of Central Excise imposed upon the petitioners a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 52 A and of Rs. 30,000/- under Rule 173Q. He also confiscated a vehicle belonging to the petitioners but permitted them to clear it on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as fine in lieu of confiscation. The petitioners preferred an appeal. On 2nd September, 1978 the Central Board of Excise and Customs confirmed the earlier order but reduced the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- to ...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Shantaben Khimji Tokarshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR691; 1984MhLJ778
Vaze, J.1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969, repair cess became payable from November 1, 1970. The landlords of various buildings recovered the repair cess from their tenants and the Bombay Municipal Corporation took into consideration the amount of the repair cess while arriving at the rateable value of the -building under Section 154(7} of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. This was challenged before the Small Causes Court at Bombay, which modified the rateable value by omitting the quantum of the repair cess added by the Corporation to the rent while computing the rateable value. Hence this appeal.2. The Supreme Court, in a decision in Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1970) 73 Bom. L.R. 900, held:The educational cess levied under Section 40 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act can be included for the purpose of valuation under Section 154(1) of the Act in the annual rent.The Court r...
Praveen D. Desai Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-v(6), Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Bom)368; [1984]149ITR187(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN273(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. The petitioner is a director of a private limited company called advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The company carries on the business of construction of buildings and the sale of flats therein2. For the assessment year 1961-62 to 1968-69 the company contended that no profit arose upon the construction by if of buildings until the entire construction work was completed. This argument was rejected by the ITO and a percentage of the cost of work done during the relevant year was added on to the company's income. The company thereafter went up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the appeals but made reference to this court, which are pending.3. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why the arrears of income-tax of the company should not be recovered from the petitioner under s. 179 of the I.T. Act, 1961. On April 10, 1979, the petitioner's chartered accountants replied and submitted that the demand which had been raise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »