Mumbai Court January 1985 Judgments
Nandita B. Palekar Vs. Y.S. Kasbekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR135; [1986(52)FLR504]; (1985)IILLJ336Bom; 1985MhLJ405
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioners in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1180 of 1973, an officiating Senior Clerk of the Maharashtra Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), is the appellant herein. Tenements were constructed by the Board under the Low Income Group Housing Scheme. It is common ground that these tenements were open for allotment even to persons other than the employees of the Board. One such tenement No. 84 in Building No. 5 at Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (East), Bombay was allotted to the Appellant with effect from 16th August, 1970 on payment of a monthly instalment of Rs. 143/- exclusive of service charges which were provisionally fixed at Rs. 19/-. On such allotment, the Board took an undertaking No. II from the appellant which reads as follows :-'(UNDERTAKING NO. II DATED 12TH AUGUST, 1970) I hereby undertake that the following bona fide persons of my family will only stay with me in the tenement No. 5/84 at L.I.G. Colony at Santacruz of Maharashtra Hous...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Income-tax Officer Vs. M.N. Nambiar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD581(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the department, the only issue to be considered is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 6,498 which represents the interest payable on loans taken for the construction of the property.2. The assessee is an individual. He is a member of a co-operative housing society. The society itself had arranged for loan for the construction of the apartment. The construction of the apartment was completed and sometime in September 1982 the society wrote to the assessee that the interest payable on advances covering the period from 30-4-1980 to 26-7-1982 amounted to Rs. 6,498 and this amount should be paid before possession was given. The assessee paid off this amount.Possession was given in January 1982.3. In the computation of income, he claimed this amount as a deduction.The ITO held that the amount representing arrears of interest of prior years would not be allowable. On appeal, the AAC, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals arise out of the Order-in-Appeal bearing Nos. 2452/79 to 2463/79, dated 28-12-1979 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be stated as under: The appellants are the manufacturer of P or P Medicines falling under Tariff Item 14-E of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the period from June, 1974 to December, 1974 the appellants received back in their factory certain quantities of their products for the purposes of re-processing. After re-processing they cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise duty. Subsequently, the appellants claimed refund of duty originally paid in respect of the goods which were brought to their factory for re-processing and which were subsequently cleared on payment of duty. In all they made 12 claims. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by 12 separate orders disallowed portion of their claims hol...
Tag this Judgment!Polyset Corporation and Others Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: 1989(20)LC73(Bombay); 1985(21)ELT48(Bom); 1985MhLJ765
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The common question of law that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether Notification No. 184-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976 issued by the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as 'the exemption notification') in exercise of the powers vested in it under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Act') entitles the petitioners to claim exemption from customs duty on the value of the packages in which the goods imported are packed. Our learned colleague, Smt. Sujata Manohar, J. was of the view that the exemption notification only exempts packages or containers from being separately charged to duty and does not provide for deducting the value of the packages from the value of the goods as arrived at under Section 14 of the Customs Act. This view being at variance with what our learned brother, Pendse, J. Had held in Writ Petition Nos. 1099 of 1978, 1641 of 1982 and 2053 of 1982 Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Shantaram Dhume Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR82; 1986MhLJ998
Lentin, J.1. Would the exemption of 2250 hectares of surplus vacant land in a housing scheme framed by the State Government under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 be in public interest? Such is the essential controversy raised by these two public interest petitions. Common questions of fact and law arise, A consolidated judgment.2. The petitions also challenge a scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 21 of the Act. That challenge was however not pressed in the present petitions as indicated by my order dated January 8, 1985.3. As parties were not entirely ad idem regarding certain facts, I am, in order to obviate unnecessary controversy, proceeding on the facts as given to me by the State Government's learned Counsel. They are as follows:-(A) By Government Circular dated June 29, 1983, Government announced a new scheme under Section 20 of the Act, for 'Housing for weaker section of the society' in the public interest. Thereby opportunity wa...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. May and Baker Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD869(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - The three appeals are by the department which pertain to the assessment years 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1977-78 respectively. The cross-objections have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. For the sake of convenience, they are disposed of by the common order.2. In departments appeals, the main ground pertains to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that no income is assessable in the hands of the assessee, a non-resident company, for the business carried on in India. A few facts are necessary to make the position clear.3. The assessee-company was doing business in India through its branch which was converted into an Indian Company with effect from 1-1-1975. Under the scheme of amalgamation of the undertaking in India belonging to the assessee, that is non-resident, with May & Backer (India) Ltd., an Indian company, wholly owned by the assessee, the entire undertaking of the assessed-companies branch in Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Dinshaw Jamshed Irani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1985
Reported in: 1990(26)LC583(Bombay)
Lentin, J.1. The petitioner seeks the return of certain documents seized from his possession in the course of a. raid by the enforcement directorate.2. The petitioner is a non-resident Indian. He holds a British Passport issued to him on 15th August 1977. He in employed as a senior marine engineer on diverse vessels. In 1960-61 the petitioner settled abroad. However he paid occasional visits to Pune down the years. In l970, the petitioner got married in Pune where his wife and two children reside permanently. They are Indian citizens. In 1981 the petitioner came to Pune where he remained till 1983 before joining his duty on board a vessel. On 15th January 1983 while the petitioner was in Pune, his residence was raided by the enforcement directorate. A number of documents were seized, to with (a) his passport, (b) 20 traveller's cheques of the Standard Chartered Bank, Bombay branch of the total value of 700 pounds, (c) a cheque of the City Bank of New York for $ 8500 and (d) other docum...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Dorr Oliver (India) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD229(Mum.)
1. The department is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68. The question at issue is whether the income earned by the assessee-company up to 5-6-1966 in dollars should be converted into rupees as per the exchange rate on that date and the income earned from 6-6-1966 up to the end of the accounting year 30-9-1966 should be similarly converted into rupees at the post-devaluation rate.2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in the USA. It is a fully owned subsidiary of another company Dorr-Oliver Inc., which is also a non-resident company incorporated in the USA. The operations of the assessee-company are confined to India only, carried on through its only branch at Bombay. Till the assessment year 1966-67, the company filed its statements of final accounts in dollars. For the purposes of the assessment under appeal, for the first time, the company filed one set of statement of final accounts from 1-10-1965 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!Fourth Income-tax Officer Vs. Shrimpel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD148(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1975-76 for which the accounting year ended on 30-6-1974. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in marine products. The ITC Ltd. was the exclusive customer of the assessee. The assessee used to sell marine products to the ITC Ltd. and those products were ultimately exported.The assessee used to get the marine products packed in the cartons belonging to the ITC Ltd. and get certificates about the good condition of the products from the Export Inspection Agency, which was a Government authority. The assessee used to receive nearly 90 per cent of the price of the products by way of advances from the ITC Ltd. before the above operations were carried on. These products were then used to be shipped to foreign purchasers indicated by the ITC Ltd. Subsequently, the assessee used to receive the balance of the price.2. In the relevant accounting year, the turnover disclosed in the books of account of the assessee was Rs. 1,49...
Tag this Judgment!Rohinton P. Daruwalla Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ800Bom
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner who is an employee of the Respondent No.2 the Indian Hotels Company Limited, Taj Mahal Hotel, Bombay. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was working in the Taj Mahal Hotel, Bombay from 1st February 1976. On 1st July 1979, he was confirmed as a Junior Operator. It appears that thereafter with effect from 1st June 1982 he was appointed as Assistant Operator and from 1st October, 1982 as Operator. His services were terminated by an order, dated 23rd September, 1983 and ostensibly the order is of termination simpliciter. The Petitioner - employee raised an industrial dispute qua the said termination on 26th October 1983. Thereafter conciliation proceedings were held and the conciliation officer submitted a failure report on 2nd March, 1984. Thereafter by an order, dated 30th April, 1984, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act refused to m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »