Mumbai Court March 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.
Trade Centre Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom4
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present petitioner No.1 i.e. Trade Centre Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. became the owners of the land in dispute pursuant to the consent decree passed by this court on 7th of may 1981 in suit No. 895 of 1981 between the original petitioner Diana Dara Sukia and the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 Jagdish Prasad is the Director of the petitioner No.1 company. It is an admitted position that by an agreement of lease dated 3rd of December 1958 the original petitioner agreed to lease the land in dispute to Messrs Standard Vacuum Oil Company for a period of 20 years with effect from 1st October 1958. The said period was to expire on 1st October 1978. The annual rent of the said land was Rs.2,200/- plus taxes. Other terms and conditions of lease were also incorporated in the agreement. It is also an admitted position that from 19th March 1962 rights and interests of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company were taken over by the Esso Standard Eastern Incorporated and there...
R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay (3)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR651
Khatri, J.1. While disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1983 and Transferred Cases Nos. 347 and 348 of 1983, the Supreme Court passed the following operative order on February 1984 86 Bom. L.R.404This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order and decision of the learned Special Judge Shri R.B. Sule dated July 25, 1983 discharging the accused in Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed further from the stage where the accused was discharged.The accused was the Chief Minister of a premier State - the State of Maharashtra. By a prosecution launched as early as on September 11, 1981, his character and integrity came under a cloud. Nearly 21 years have rolled by and the case has not moved an inch further. An expeditious trial is primarily in the interest of the accused and a mandate of Article 21. Expeditious disposal of a criminal case is in the interest of both, the prosecution and the accused. Therefore, Spe...
Hindustan Fashions Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai
1.This is an appeal under Section 129A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order No. S/49-30/1982 Exports dated 23-11-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The Appellant filed the shipping Bill No. 4564 for export of 17 cartons of cotton garments valued at Rs. 39,300/ f.o.b. from handloom fabric on 10-7-1981. On examination, the customs found that the goods of style No. 905 comparising 672 pieces of Blouses contained in 7 cartons valued at Rs. 16,800/- f.o.b were not made out of handloom fabric but were of powerloom fabric. The Assistant Collector held that this constituted a case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act and liability for imposition of penalty under Section 114. He did not believe the exporters explanation that the misdeclaration was not inten-ional and was a result of incorrect information given by the suppliers of fabric and they had still a quota of 45,000 pieces of powerloom blouses and wou...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Indian Lime Corpn.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)8ITD908(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 20-12-1982 in the 1979-80 income-tax assessment proceedings of a registered firm.2. The appeal raises two disputes. The first relates to the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that an amount of Rs. 5,42,872 could not be disallowed under Section 40(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The second dispute relates to the decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) that an amount of Rs. 89,606 could not be disallowed under Section 40A(5) of the Act.3. In the assessee-firm, there are three partners. The first partner is a limited company, Sapulchre Bros. (India) Ltd., with 60 per cent share and the other two are ladies, Mrs. Chandravati D. Ghorpade and Mrs.Shivamala Urs, each with 20 per cent share each. The partnership agreement is dated 24-6-1965. The recital of the agreement states that Mrs. Chandravati D. Ghorpade and Mrs. Shivamala Urs were parties of the first and the second part and Sa...
Smt. Anjana Ashok Vs. Second Assistant Controller of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD325(Mum.)
1. These two estate duty appeals, one by the accountable person and the other by the department are in respect of the estate duty matter in the case of the same deceased, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Ramanlal Shah, and have arisen from the same appellate order of the Appellate Controller.It was, therefore, considered expedient to consolidate these two appeals and to hear them together. They were, accordingly, heard and are now disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. In her memo of grounds of appeal, the accountable person, namely, Smt. Anjana Ashok Shah, has drawn up four grounds of appeal. However, these boil down to only the following effective grounds: 1. That the Appellate Controller erred in confirming the order of the Assistant Controller (ACED) whereby the latter had included in the estate of the deceased the value of the assets of Trust Nos. II and III. 2. That, without prejudice to the contention stated above, even assuming that; the value of the assets of...
Arun S. Meher Vs. M.A. Twigg, Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)19; [1985]153ITR131(Bom); [1984]19TAXMAN431(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution relates to proceedings under the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act').2. Return of wealth for the assessment year 1977-78 was filed by the petitioner on November 29, 1977, and the return of wealth for the assessment year 1978-79 was filed on October 24, 1978.3. For the assessment year 1977-78, assessment order was passed by the WTO on April 28, 1979, and of the assessment year 1978-79, the assessment order was passed on September, 1979. In the assessment order dated September 19, 1979, for the year 1978-79, it was categorically stated as follows :'After discussion, the value declared is subject to rectification. It is agreed by the assessee's representative that if no reference to the Valuation Officer under section 16A of the W.T. Act, 1957, the value of the property is determined at a figure different from what is declared, the assessment will be rectified accordingly.'4. It was subject to the above that the net wealt...
D. R. D. Tata Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD642(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri K. S. Viswanathan, Accountant Member - The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessee should be assessee in respect of interest of Rs. 4,000 which, according to the department, is due from a party. The assessee is an individual. He had advanced a loan of Rs. 50,000 to a firm by name Shevade Camera Works on 3-4-1975 at 8 per cent interest. For the first year, the assessee received an interest of Rs. 4,000 which was shown as the income of that year. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any interest. In spite of that, in the returns filed, the assessee did not receive any interest. In spite of that, in the returns filed, the assessee showed these amounts as due and was assessed. For the assessment year 1979-80, no such income was shown. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. In this year also, no interest was shown as receivable.2. The ITO found that the assessee was maintaining his accounts on mercantile basis. He further found that the assessee had n...
Pyrkes Wine Stores Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: [1984]9ITD93(Mum)
ORDER1. These two appeals, both relating to the assessment year 1979-80, filed by the assessee against the orders of the AAC deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a firm. It was aggrieved by the assessment order estimating the total income at Rs. 30,000 and refusal of continuation of registration. Two appeals were, therefore, filed, one against the assessment order and another against the order refusing continuation of registration. Two appeals were, therefore, filed, one against the assessment order and another against the order refusing continuation of registration in the prescribed Form No. 35 on 18-1-1982. Here it will be necessary to point out that these appeal memos were signed by Shri H. C. Parikh, Advocate, for and on behalf of the assessee-firm. This was followed by another set of appeal memos signed by a partner of the assessee-firm filed on 29-1-1982 against the assessment order and on ...
Nasim @ Ballu Sardar Jafri Vs. J.F. Ribeiro and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR109
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner, Nasim @ Ballu Sardar Jafri, (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') has by this writ petition challenged the legality and validity of the detention order dated 27th July, 1983 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'Detaining Authority') under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned detention order was served on the detenu on 1st August, 1983 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Along with the detention order he was also served with the grounds of detention.2. The grounds of the detention were as under :---'I. On 10-4-1982 at about 13.45 hours Shri Sayed Khwaja Sayed Mehboob, R/o Aziz Murgiwala Chawl, Prem Nagar, Jogeshwari (East), Bombay- 60 along with his brother Shree Sayed Ismail Sayed Mehboob were arranging queue of customers for kerosene oil in front of Rationing Shop No. 26/D-61, ldgah Maidan, Jo...
Khimji Vijpar Chheda Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD389(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1976-77. The only question that arises is whether a sum of Rs. 48,639 received by the assessee from R. Ratilal & Co. is taxable under the head 'Salaries' or as business income of the assessee. The ITO treated it as business income and the learned AAC upheld his decision.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned departmental representative. The relationship between the assessee and the said firm of R. Ratilal, & Co. is governed by an agreement dated 17-11-1972, which for facility of reference we consider it proper to reproduce here. Articles of agreement made at Bombay on the 17th day of November, 1972, between R. Ratilal and Company, a Partnership at 111, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay-1 (hereinafter called 'the principals') of the one part and Shri Khimji Vijpar Chheda, Hindu inhabitant of Bombay (hereinafter called the joint manager), of the second part and Shri Kishore Khimji Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »