Mumbai Court October 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F.Y. Khambaty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)275; [1986]159ITR203(Bom); [1980]24TAXMAN29(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These four references arise on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years with which we are concerned in these references are the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71. The references arise on a common statement of the case and the contentions raised in these references are also the same. Hence, the references are being disposed of by this common judgment. The question which has been referred to us for our determination is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of the assessee's wife and minor children could not be included in the assessee's hands on the ground that the residential status of the individual alone has to be considered and not of his wife and children for the purpose of section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, F. Y. Khambaty, was a partner in the firm of M/s. F. Y. Khambaty & Sons, Kano, Nigeria (referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Suruyakant Walcvhand Shah and Etc. Vs. Shahanavaz Hanifsaheb Bhokare a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom5; 1986(1)BomCR255; (1985)87BOMLR545; 1985MhLJ937
Pratap, J.1. The appeals come before us on a reference to a larger Bench. Abbreviated to the minimum , the relevant facts and circumstances are as follows:2. After terminating the respective defendants' tenancy, the respective plaintiffs filed suits for possession . The defendants claimed protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947 - hereinafter 'the Rent Act'). The trial Court held that the Rent Act did not apply to the suit area i.e. the area where the suit premises were situate. There being no other valid defence to the claim for possession, the suits were decreed. Appeals therefrom failed. Hence these second appeals by the respective defendants.3. A learned single Judge of this Court referred these appeals to a Division Bench . The Division Bench referred the same, in turn, to the learned Chief Justice for placing them before a larger Bench. Hence this Full Bench.4. Though in the referring judgment, the question for c...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Chandiprasad Jalan and ors. Vs. Raniram Darkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom184; 1986(1)BomCR1; (1985)87BOMLR534; 1986MhLJ1
K. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. This Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No. 3575 of 1982 has been referred to the Full Bench. The relevant facts in this petition are few. On 18-6-1977 a decree for possession was passed in Suit No. 5536 of 1970. It was a decree under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'). Its execution was obstructed by the respondents Pabbar Madhu and others. Their case was that the defendant-tenant had put them in possession of the rented property under a leave and licensee agreement dt. 16-2-1968 and that this agreement was subsisting on 1-2-973. By the amending Act of 1973 such licensees have been protected and they become tenants. The executing Court accepted this contention. The appeal against this decision was dismissed on 19-3-1979. The decree-holders have filed Writ Petition No. 76 of 1980 against it.2. In Writ Petition No. 3575 of 1982 an expert decree for possession was passed on 17-1...
Tag this Judgment!Evaristo Estenaslaoc Rodrigues and ors. Vs. Vaman Anant Parab Mahambre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR560
G.F. Couto, J.1. This writ petition gives rise to an interesting question of law, namely whether a landlord can get vacant possession of the premises let out by him for commercial purposes on the ground of its bona fide requirement for his residence.2. The petitioners are the owners of a house property situated at Patte Ribandar. The said property belonged to the parents of the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh petitioners and one Custodia, Rodrigues who is another brother of the petitioners. The said Rodrigues filed a civil suit for division of the said property in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Panaji and the said house property was divided in the said suit. A portion of the said house laying to the South was allotted to the said Rodrigues and the remaining portion was allotted to the petitioners. By a lease agreement dated 4th January, 1957, a part of the said building was let out by the petitioners and Custodia Rodrigues to the first respondent for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Apar Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR196; (1986)88BOMLR355; 1985(6)ECC241; 1988(19)LC514(Bombay); 1985(22)ELT644(Bom)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. Four questions arising under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) are referred to the Full Bench and they are :-1. Under the Customs Act, 1962, when can the event of importation be said to occur ?2. At what point of time or date the rate of Customs duty to which imported goods are liable was to be determined under the Customs Act, 1962 ?3. Whether it would make any difference to the answer to the second question in cases where at the date of import the goods were totally exempt from duty, either basis or additional, as against being partially exempt from such duty ?4. Whether the countervailing or additional duty payable under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, or under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, was customs duty referred to in the charging section, namely, Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 ?2. The facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions are stated in the order of reference and we think it unnecessary to repeat the same. Suf...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhaktawar Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)5; [1986]162ITR452(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN7(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question to be considered in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the building known as 'Meher Chambers' arising from lease and lease and licence of the building premises was assessable under the head 'Income from property' or under the head 'Income from other sources' ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee had constructed a building called known as 'Meher Chambers' consisting of a ground and give upper floors. It was centrally air-conditioned. By three leases, separate premises in the building were leased to three tenants. By another set of three agreements, the air-conditioning facility was made available to the three tenants. We shall refer to the agreements in some detail.3. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1962-63 declaring the income received from the leases under the head ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)254; [1986]160ITR723(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are two references on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Surtax Act'). The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The questions which have been referred to us for our opinion are as follows :'(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'debenture redemption reserve' and 'gratuity reserves' were 'other reserves' under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and the same are to be taken into account in computing the capital of the assessee company for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the increase in the assessee's liability to the tune of Rs. 11,71,504.90 on account of deval...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Pol and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR613
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing process issued against them by the Judicial Magistrate (AC) Pune, in Criminal Case No. 1041 of 1985 filed by the second respondent Shri S.S. Gadhoke, a builder and contractor, for offence under section 500 read with section 34 IPC, on the ground that some of the statement in the letter dated 20th May, 1978, addressed by the first petitioner to the second petitioner, are defamatory.2. At the material time, i.e. in May 1978, petitioner No. 1, who is now Chief Engineer of P.W.D., Bombay Zone, was working as Superintending Engineer in Pune National Highway Circle, while petitioner No. 2, who retired from the Government service as Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the month of March 1985, was Chief Engineer of P.W. Region, Pune.3. The second respondent is a civil engineer and is a partner of S.S. Gadhoke & Sons, a firm of civil engineers and contractors. He is also a partner of another firm M/s. Ranjeet Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Transport and Dock Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. Food Corporation of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR305
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is aimed against a notification issued under section 4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Shops Act') and the letter of instructions dated 2-4-85, issued by the Senior Regional Manager of respondent No. 1 to its District Managers, directing them to pay overtime allowance (CTA) to the employees as prescribed by the FCI/ Govt. of India from time to time.2. The State legislature, passed the Shops Act with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of conditions of work and employment in shops, commercial establishments and other establishments, in the State of Maharashtra. Section 4 of the Shops Act empowers the State Government to exempt establishments from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act. Establishments so exempted, together with the extent of the exemption, are to be listed in Schedule II. Section 5 provides that establishme...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mazda theatres Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]162ITR442(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The common question that arises in these references at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the reassessment proceedings were concluded with the finalisation of the settlement petition on June 5, 1968, is in law justified ?'2. The assessment years concerned are 1957-58 and 1958-59. The assessments for these years were originally made on June 25, 1958, and August 16, 1961, respectively. On December 29, 1965, the Income-tax Officer issued to the assessee a notice under section 147(a) read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasons noted by the Income-tax Officer for thus initiating reassessment proceedings were stated thus :'It is found that hundi borrowings of the assessee-company aggregating to Rs. 5,000 are from parties who are mere name-lenders. I have, therefore, reason to believe that the said amount represents the assessee's own concealed income chargeable...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »