Mumbai Court October 1985 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.
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)286; [1986]162ITR320(Bom)
Kania, J.1. These are three references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on reference applications made by the assessee. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. As the Tribunal has submitted a common statement of the case in respect of these references and as the controversies in the references are common, we are disposing of the references by this single judgment.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family (for brevity's sake, referred to hereinafter as 'HUF') of Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal. The said Gangadhar was the karta of the Hindu undivided family. It appears that Gangadhar received Rs. 60,000 in cash from his father in March, 1950, when he was a student aged 18 years. Within a decade, he acquired wealth amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000 in Goa which was then a Portuguese territory. The said wealth belonged to the assessee, namely, the Hindu undivided family. Gan...
Bayer (India) Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC301Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Thr Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49/636/81 Dbk dated 21-9-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bo'mbay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal fcr being heard as an appeal.2. The appellant's claim for drawback made after the expiry of two years under Section 74 of the Customs Act was rejected by the Assistant Collector as inadmissible. On appeal, the Appellate Collector confirmed the order passed holding that the rejection was rightly done.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri D'Silva, appearing for the appellant submitted that their export was after the expiry of - two years. They had however made an application to the Board for extension of time, but the Board did not grant extension. He submitted that the Board did not pass any speaking order, and therefore, the appellant could not file an appeal or revision before the Government of India.Further, the provisions then existing did not...
Murlidhar Chintaman Waghmare Vs. Smt. Pratibha Murlidhar Waghmare and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR358; (1985)87BOMLR561; 1985MhLJ958
ORDER1. This is a Criminal Application filed by the Petitioner (Original opponent) against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.2. The Petitioner and the 1st Respondent (original applicant) were legally wedded on 12-5-1967 as per Hindu religious rites. It was the second marriage of the Petitioner which was performed after the death of his first wife who left behind a daughter from that marriage. After their marriage, the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent started residing at Neral in Taluka Karjat, District Raigad. In the initial period their relations were normal. However, thereafter, the Petitioner and his mother started ill-treating the 1st Respondent in the various ways. She was starved, harassed in various other ways by the Petitioner and his mother. The Petitioner's abnormal sexual appetite subjected Respondent No. 1 to physical sufferings. When she went to see her ailing brother on 31-10-1967 the Petitioner was incensed out on her return. She was severely assaulted an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.P. Monga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)22; [1986]162ITR224(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN56(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises a question at the instance of the Revenue. It reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the shed ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1968-69. The assessee carried on business as sole proprietor of M/s. Radio Electrical Corporation, Bombay. On May 26, 1967, he entered into a lease deed with the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (M.I.D.C.). We shall be concerned with interpreting the clauses of the said deed and shall advert to it in more detail later.3. The assessee did not claim depreciation on the shed standing on the plot of land demised by the said deed for the previous year in question. He appealed against the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He claimed in the appeal depreciation on the said shed for the first time and was permitted to do so. He contend...
Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR187; 1989(24)ECC23; 1989(24)LC718(Bombay); 1989(40)ELT14(Bom)
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the investigation started by the Preventive section of the Customs Department against the petitioner for offence under Section 135 read with Section 111(o) and Section 11 of the Customs Act.2. According to the petitioner he carries on business of export and commission agents under the name and style of M/s. Regent International, as a sole proprietor. He has export business with turn-over of more than 15 crores in last three years. He exports all kinds of Indian produce and products. He is also assessed under the Income Tax Act and is a regular Tax Prayer. According to him the Customs Authorities are trying to apprehend him under some or other provisions of the Customs Act with sole intention of harassing him. In view of this he filed an application for anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had secured the same. T...
international Airports Authority Vs. P.K. Srivastava
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR335; [1986(52)FLR91]; (1987)ILLJ242Bom; 1986MhLJ491
1. This petition is filed by the International Airports Authority of India challenging an order dated 16th September, 1981 passed by the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court, Bombay in reference No. 544/1977 holding on a preliminary point that the State Government was the Appropriate Government for making a reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The 1st respondent was an Airport Ticket Clerk in Bombay. After the constitution of the International Airports Authority of India under the International Airports Authority Act of 1971 the 1st Respondent was delegated as an employee to the International Airports Authority of India, the petitioners herein. He was absorbed as an employee of the petitioners on 21st August, 1975 with retrospective effect. Thereafter the services of the 1st respondent were terminated by the petitioners on 20th September, 1975. The dispute which is the subject matter of the reference in the present petition relates to this order of term...
Gerald Joseph Saldanha and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR491
A.G. Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. This review petition is by the appellants in Appeal Nos. 81 of 1979 and 82 of 1979, disposed of on 1st August, 1984 by a Division Bench of which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party. That was a judgment common to two appeals. The other Review Petition No. 7 of 1985 was filed on the limited ground. It was contended therein that the assumption made in the judgment under review that Shri Kalsekar continued to be an Advocate on record, was not correct and a request was made to expunge certain observations in that judgment. That review petition was dismissed by us on 23rd September, 1985. Although the present review petition describes all the appellants as review petitioners, it is stated by Shri Kalsekar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that it is filed only on behalf of petitioners Nos. 9, 10, 11, 15, 18 and 23 and that Vakalatnama was filed in this review petition only on their behalf and that all the appellants were shown as petitioners in this revi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alimchand Topandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)207; [1987]163ITR511(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, three questions are posed to us. They read thus :'(1) Whether sub-rule (3) of rule l9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, is directly in conflict with the parent provision in section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) If so, whether section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prevails over sub-rule (3) of rule l9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm could be said to have employed its own capital in the new industrial undertaking even when it was initially locked up in the business earlier carried on by it ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , and that in the circumstances the second question does not arise. The first and sec...
Jayawantibai Namdeo Sonawale and ors. Vs. Vilas Dnyanu Salunkhe and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR456; 1986MhLJ1052
N.K. Parekh, J.1. Being aggrieved by an order and judgement dated the 29th September, 1978, passed by the Assistant Judge, Satara in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1974, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The facts that lead to this appeal are that one Vasudeo Kulkarni had two wives, one being Gangubai and the other being Yashodabai. The said Gangubai had no issues. She adopted one Ramchandra as her son. Yashodabai, however, had one issue who was named Indubai. The said Vasudeo died in 1919. He also left behind him some property including the suit property. However, in view of some family disputes that arose, the said Yashodabai was constrained to file a suit being Civil Suit No. 265 of 1926. In the said suit, a decree came to be passed, inter alia allotting the suit property to the said Yashodabai, and granting her a limited interest therein as an owner, but only for the purposes of her maintenance. After the passing of the said decree, the said Yashodabai inducted tenants in th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)365
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 as applicable under the provisions of s. 19 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the asst. yr. 1963-64, the relevant previous year being the one ended on 31-3-1963. The question referred to us for our determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 63,78,693 representing provision for leave salary, accident, gratuity reserve etc. was includible in computation of the capital of the assessee ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 12,00,000 representing provision for contingencies was includible in the computation of capital ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,46,790 which was a part of the surplus in the Profit and Loss Account as on 31-3-1962 but had been appropriated as 'Dividend Reserve' after 31-3-1963 was includible in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »