Mumbai Court June 1985 Judgments
Rohiniben Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD830(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a trust, assessed as an AOP, sold 2,400 equity shares of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. and received a surplus computed at Rs. 26,475. The ITO included this surplus as long-term capital gain in the total income. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee claimed that the shares of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. sold were bonus shares and so no capital gains should have been assessed on the surplus. A number of decisions were cited before the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the claim that no capital gain arose on the transfer of an asset for which no cost of acquisition can be ascribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's claim and confirmed the ITO's order.It is, thus, that the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal.2. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal, reliance was placed by the department on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in In re. Radhika Trust No. 1 [IT Appeal No. 654 (Bom.) of 1982 dated 28-7-1983], in rejecting the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Bhat Vs. Thirteenth Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD543(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC, O-Range, Bombay 2. The assessee is an individual and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee's daughter was married on 25-12-1980 and on the next day, i.e., 26-12-1980, the assessee gifted ornaments weighing 88 grams of the total value of Rs. 14,872 to her. It was claimed before the GTO that this gift was exempt to the extent of Rs. 10,000 under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act') and since the remaining amount of Rs. 4,872 was below the taxable limit, i.e., basic exemption, no gift tax was payable. The GTO, however, did not accept this claim on the ground firstly that no gift deed had been prepared by the assessee and secondly the donee was a married daughter. On appeal, the AAC held that after her marriage on 25-12-1980, the daughter was already married and, therefore, no more dependent on the assessee and, therefore, the gift on 26-12-1980 was not gift to a relative ...
Tag this Judgment!Everest Mudranalay Vs. J.F. Silva, Superintendent of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT315(Bom)
1. The short question for determination... and to which question alone this petition is restricted at the time of its final hearing... relates to the validity of Notification No. 155 of 1972 (hereinafter the impugned notification) dated 15th June, 1972 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Hearing on this question rival submissions of the respective Counsel - Mr. R. K. Habbu, for the Petitioners and Mr. M. I. Sethna for the Respondents, I find no merit in the challenge to the legality and validity of the impugned notification. It must, at the outset, be stated that there is no challenge to the validity either of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules or of Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The challenge is only to the legality and validity of the impugned notification as being ultra vires the powers of the Central Government. It is, however, extremely difficult to accept this challenge once the rule ma...
Tag this Judgment!Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT508(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioners - M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited (hereinafter the company) - are engaged in the business of manufacture of cigarettes. On the said cigarettes excise duty is payable on ad valorem basis under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter the Act). Under section 2(f) of the Act:' 'manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and(i) in relation to tobacco includes the preparation of cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, biris, cigarette or pipe or hookah tobacco, chewing tobacco or snuff;(ia) in relation to manufactured tobacco, includes the labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer.'Thus in the case of manufactured tobacco or cigarettes, re-labeling of containers and re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any treatment to render the product marketab...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Ambadas Hanchate Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR352; 1985MhLJ699
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are teachers in private schools, have challenged the validity of Rule 3(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The said sub-rule reads as under -3(4) In the case of a girls' secondary school or Junior College of Education for Women, the seniormost lady teacher fulfilling the conditions laid down in clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) and having satisfactory record of service, shall be appointed as the Head of that school irrespective of her seniority vis-a-vis the male teachers.The validity of this rule is challenged on the ground that it is violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. A similar question came up for the consideration before a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Vinayak Ramchandra Sudame v. State of Maharashtra (1985) Spl. C.A. No. 1490 of 1977 (Nagpur Bench) decided on Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Uniferro International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC277Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order in appeal bearing No. S/49-1395/81 M dated 11.3.82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellant's claim for refund of duty on shortshipped goods was rejected by the Assistant Collector, MCD as unsubstantiated for non production of no charge invoice, customs attested invoice, foreign suppliers confirmation letter and certain other documents. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal holding that the shortages were noticed after out of charge order was passed.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Mamoola submitted that after the physical clearance of the goods the importers checked the machinery and spare parts. Then they noticed 6 electrode cooling fans and plates were missing. Immediately, a telex message was sent to the suppliers and the suppliers confirmed shortshipment of the said item...
Tag this Judgment!Sulekha Sandip Parikh and Others Vs. S.N. Nadkarni, 6th Income-tax Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Bom)82; [1986]159ITR775(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN474(Bom)
Pratap, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act').2. One Dhanvantrai Keshavlal Shah and his wife Prabhavati, petitioner No. 3, were members of the Keshavlal Ratanji Hindu undivided family (hereinafter 'the K. R. HUF') which owned agricultural land bearing Town Planning Survey No. 353 at Ghatkopar within the municipal limits of Greater Bombay. This land was sub-divided into six plots bearing Nos. 353/1 to 353/6. Five of these were sold in the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. That this was agricultural land was accepted by the Department and capital gains arising from the above sales were not subjected to tax. The remaining plot No. 353/6 was sub-divided into sub-plots. On partition of the K.R. HUF, some of these sub-plots were allotted to the Hindu undivided family of Dhanvantrai. During Samvat year 2026 there was a partial partition of the Hindu undivided ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. Mohd. HussnuddIn S/O Mohd. Nawaz and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR1; 1986MhLJ329
Sharad Manohar, J.1. A patently unsupportable order revealing misplaced sympathies in the matter of imposition of sentence is passed by the learned Magistrate dealing with offence under section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act.2. The facts are very simple. The respondent, admittedly, constructed two rooms quite unauthorisedly and in rank disregard of the municipal laws. Notice was given to him by the Municipal Council requiring him to demolish the unauthorised constructions. The respondent refused to pay heeds to the notice. Ultimately the petitioner council was compelled to institute proceedings against him under section 189(9) of the Municipalities Act.3. In the Court, the respondent admitted the fact that he had carried out the unauthorised construction and entered the plea of guilt. Upon this plea, the learned Magistrate just ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under section 189(9) of the Municipalities Act and felt that there th...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT616Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against Order No. 1115/80 of 1980 dated 20-12-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the tribunal for being heard as an appeal.The appellants, M/s. Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd., imported a consignment of Hydrogen Compressors with Motors and spares and claimed clearance against import licence No. 1435300 dated 3-7-1978. The customs, however, objected to the clearance; firstly, on the ground that the compressors are capital goods and cannot be considered as components of Hydrogen Gas generating plant; and secondly, the item imported could not be correlated to any item listed in Appendix 5. The appellants by their letter dated 8-10-79 informed the Customs that the compressors were required for the hydrogen gas plant which they were manufacturing and supplying to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. They also contended that earlier they had been importing such compress...
Tag this Judgment!Ajinath Sahebrao Hore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR546
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The petitioner before me was convicted by the trial Court of offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act on the ground that he was found to be in possession of 50 gms. of 'Ganja' at the time when he was accosted by the Police. The Police led enough evidence to prove the possession of the said quantity of Ganja with the accused.2. In defence, all that the accused came out was that he did not have in his possession the said quantity of Ganja. It was not at all his case, either in the case of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or during his examination under section 313 of the Code, that the said quantity of Ganja was planted upon him by any of the Police Officers who accosted him and conducted the search. The trial Court found that the offence committed by the petitioner was fully proved by sufficient evidence. Hence, he was convicted of the above mentioned offence and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »