Mumbai Court April 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.
Hong Kong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC115Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed under Section 131 of the Customs, Act 1962 (unarnended) against the Order No. 1252A-1257A/1980 dated June, 1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise it Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as a appeal before it.2. The appellants M/s. Hong Kong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. and M/s.Hongkong Pacific Shipping Co. filed two appeals before the Central Board of Excise & Customs against the order-in- original bearing No.S/14-4.749/74 Pint dated 8.10.1976 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay by which the Collector directed confiscation of their vessel 'Apli Chau' but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- and also confiscated the manifested goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs, 20,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the owners of the vessel viz. Hong Kong Pacific Shipping Co. and a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- on M/s. Hong Kong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. Be...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jamnadas Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: [1986]62STC110(Bom)
Kania, J.1. The question referred to us for determination in this reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sale Tax Act, 1953 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1953'), is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the respondent made by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, Bombay, for the period from 1st April, 1954, to 31st December, 1959, was barred by limitation ?'2. The respondent-dealer had its place of business at Calcutta. The respondent was not registered as a dealer under the said Act of 1953. It imported goods into India from outside the country and part of these goods were sold in the then State of Bombay. It was found that the sales made by the dealer in the then State of Bombay exceeded the prescribed limit under section 5 of the Act of 1953. Consequently, a notice in form XIII under rules 15 and 16 of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, was issued and served...
Kamalakar Bapurao Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Yeola Municipal Council and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR70
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. An order dated 28th of March, 1983 passed by the Collector of Nasik under section 10 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid order, the Collector, in exercise of the powers vested in him, divided the Municipal area of Yeola Municipality into different wards for the purpose of the elections, under Chapter II of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as the ''Municipalities Act''. It is the petitioners' case that while exercising this power and while also using certain discretion vested in him the Collector has committed flagrant violation of the duty cast upon him and has also committed grave errors in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him. The petitioner's case is that under section 10 of the Municipalities Act, each Municipal area has to be divided in to different wards of equal population and any order which resul...
Geetabai Namdeo Daf Vs. B.D. Manjrekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom400; 1984(2)BomCR352; 1984MhLJ836
1. Misapprehension and confusion as regards elementary principles of law relating to leases has resulted in these proceedings seeing the precincts of this Court. Factually speaking, the legal position was not in dispute in this Court, thanks to the candid and realistic attitude taken by both the learned advocates before me, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the mistake detected in the judgment of the lower Court is being repeated quite frequently by some of the Courts below. This is the only reason I am delivering this judgment just with a view to clarify the position of law, on first principles.2. The facts relating to the appeal are very simple. The suit premises are situate in an area which was not governed by the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Rent Act'), till the date of the institution of the suit and for a long time thereafter. The appellant, who shall be referred to hereinafter as ...
Lloyd'S Register Of Shipping Vs. Income-Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD710(Mum.)
1. The only ground in the present appeal filed by the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the decision of the ITO that the assessee was not eligible for deduction of the entire initial contribution of Rs. 4,14,000 payable to the trustees of the approved gratuity fund created for the benefit of the employees.2. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed deduction for gratuity contribution of Rs. 4,85,000 consisting of initial contribution of Rs. 4,14,000 to the gratuity fund created for the purpose and annual contribution of Rs. 71,000. The trust was recognised by the Commissioner with effect from 1-7-1977. Para 4(1) of the Commissioner's letter to the trustee of the fund permitted them to make the initial contribution to the fund in five annual instalments commencing from the year in which the fund came into effect. The ITO, therefore, allowed deduction only in respect of one-fifth of the initial contribution amounting to Rs. 82,400 in addition to ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Morarji Gokul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: [1987]67STC186(Bom)
P.S. Shah, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the applicant. The question referred to us for our determination runs as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the true and proper interpretation of the contents of the letters referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the Tribunal and the evidence of Mr. Fernandes, the rent collector, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the opponent-company did not succeed to the business of Shri Kishinchand Tolaram in whole or in part, within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 1959 ?'2. M/s. Tolaram, which was a proprietary concern of Mr. Kishinchand Tolaram, was doing business at 36, Colaba Road, Bombay-5, in textile fabrics, PVC plastic goods, cycle parts, etc., as an unregistered dealer. The said premises in which...
Arun Vasant Agashe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)BomCR684
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This criminal application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed by the accused praying for quashing the proceedings in C.R. No. 20 of 1982, C.R. No. 20 of 1982 was filed by the V.T. Railway Police Station against the accused and the same is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T. Bombay. The charge sheet is filed under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act.2. It is common ground that the Investigating Officer has not obtained the sanction from the Magistrate for investigation Shri Bhonsale, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition strongly relied upon my judgment in Avinash Mukhedkar v. State of Maharashtra, : 1983(2)BomCR791 . In that matter I have taken a view that in connection with non-cognizable offences punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, no investigation could be carried out without obtaining the sanction from the Magistrate. In view of the judgment in Avinash's case, I have no ot...
Smt. Urmila Vaid Vs. Second Assistant Controller of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD705(Mum.)
1. The dispute in this estate duty appeal is about the addition of Rs. 22,630 as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased, Smt.Urmila Vaid, under Section 9 read with Section 27 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act').2. This appeal arises out of the estate duty assessment of late Smt.Urmila Vaid, who died on 28-7-1979. While completing the estate duty assessment of her estate, the Assistant Controller added a sum of Rs. 22,630 under Section 9 in respect of relinquishment of the share by the deceased in the partial partition of the HUF, which was treated by him as a disposition in the nature of a gift, as discussed in the assessment order. The Assistant Controller found that the deceased was a member of Girdharilal Shamlal, HUF, that there was a partial partition of the assets of the HUF on 3-11-1978 between Girdharilal and his minor son, Ashish, and that in this partition the deceased was not allotted any share. The Assistant Controller, therefore, concluded that this was...
income-tax Officer Vs. National Electrical Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD700(Mum.)
Dismissal of Special Leave Application against the Tribunal order will not make the Tribunal decision good and binding.Set off of current year's depreciation gets priority for set off over the carried forward business loss.Tribunal--DECISION--Dismissal of SLP against appellate order of Tribunal.Dismissal of Special Leave Application against Tribunal order will not make that Tribunal decision good and binding. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the unabsorbed business loss brought forward from the earlier years should be set off before allowing the current year's depreciation.2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of transformers and electric motors. In its return of income for the assessment year 1977-78, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977, it declared a total loss of Rs. 1,11,57,578, after deducting unabsorbed losses brought forward from earlier years and the ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Mohanlal Anil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR334; [1984]57STC145(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question referred to us for determination in this reference by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal is as follows :'Whether on a true and proper interpretation of section 15 read with section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in respect of goods covered by entry 22 of Schedule E to the Act, the rate of purchase tax leviable was 3 per cent as prescribed in column 5 of the said entry and not 6 per cent as prescribed under section 14 of the Act ?'2. The relevant facts, as appearing from the statement of the case furnished by the Tribunal, are as follows :The respondent was registered as a dealer under the said Act. Although it is not expressly stated in the statement of the case, it is common ground that the registered dealer in this case was a firm. The registration of the dealer was cancelled with effect from 1s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »