Mumbai Court August 1985 Judgments
Lokenath Tolaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)237; [1986]161ITR82(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN486(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. These are cross-references under the provisions of section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. In the earlier reference, the questions raised are at the instance of the assessee. They read as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement to the income made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the two sums of Rs. 3,74,283 and Rs. 82,611 as excess sale proceeds credited in the bank account of Ganesh Trading Company and Mahavir Trading Company, respectively ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement to the income made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by including the two sums of Rs. 2,84,819 and Rs. 93,431 as unexplained cash credits appearing in the accounts of Mahavir Trading Company and Ganesh Trading Company, respectively ?'3. In the latter refere...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepathumma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1985
Reported in: I(1987)ACC102; 1985MhLJ858
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. The first of the appeals is by an insurance company while the second is by the original owner and driver of the luxury bus.2. Both these appeals question the adjudication and award made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), directing payment of compensation in the sura of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest at 6 per cent per annum. It further directs the Insurance Company to bear the liability to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-.3. The facts are narrow, in that Kalanad Kumbhamoo was killed in an accident on December 23, 1977 while he was travelling in a private luxury bus, bearing registration No. KLC 8028, which was driven by original opponent No. 1 and owned by original opponent No. 2, the appellants in the companion appeal. The luxury bus was insured with the appellant in the first of the appeals. The accident occurred in the early morning near village Kamthadi on the Bangalore-Pune National Highway and it was seen tha...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD390(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by therevenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay.2. The assessee is a limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The Schedules 6(b) and 6(d) to the balance sheet as at 31-12-1978 showing sundry debtors at Rs. 1,07,71,747 am loans and advances at Rs. 27,52,051 were a s follows : Secured considered good : Outstanding for a period exceeding six months 24,022 Deposit with Industrial Development Bank of India under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976 (including interest accrued Rs. 30,680 previous year Rs. 14,965) 2,92,595 It was claimed before the ITO in the course of the surtax assessment proceedings that the provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 8,41,866 and the provision for doubtful advances amounting to Rs. 75,382 were reserves and should, therefore, be included in the capital for the purpose of determining the surtax liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Deepathumma Alias Beebi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas537(Bom)
Masodkar, J.1. The first of the appeals is by an insurance company while the second is by the original owner and driver of the luxury bus.2. Both these appeals question the adjudication and award made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune (hereinafter called 'The Tribunal'), directing payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum. It further directs the insurance company to bear the liability to the extent of Rs. 75,000.3. The facts are narrow, in that on Kalanad Kumbhamoo was killed in an accident on December 23, 1977, while he was travelling in a private luxury bus, bearing registration No. KLC 8028, which was driven by original opponent No. 1 and owned by original opponent No. 2 the appellants in the companion appeal. The luxury bus was insured with the appellant in the first of the appeals. The accident occurred in the early morning near village Kamthadi on the Bangalore-Pune National High Way and it was seen that the luxury b...
Tag this Judgment!Shriyaskumar Vs. Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom183; 1985(2)BomCR697; 1986MhLJ736
ORDER1. This revision raises a short but interesting question of interpretation of Ss. 27A and 27B of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, in its application to the State of Maharashtra relating to distress warrant proceedings under Chapter IV-A of the said Act.2. To appreciate this question, it would be necessary to advert briefly to the facts in this case. The non-applicant is the landlord and the applicant is his tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The tenant-applicant was in arrears of rent for the period August 1978 to January 1981. The non-applicant-landlord filed a regular suit No. 129/81 claiming arrears of rent of Rs. 8,700/- from the applicant-tenant. While this suit was pending, further arrears became due form the applicant-tenant for the period 16-1-1981 to 16-6-1981. The non-applicant-landlord, therefore, served a notice on 9-7-1981 calling upon the applicant-tenant to pay off the arrears of rent for the period January 1981 to June 1981 within 15 days as requir...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Rambhau Waghmare, Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR160
R.R. Jahagirdar, J.1. These three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1980 which was preferred by accused No. 3 was initially summarily dismissed. The previous Bench, however, had appointed Shri Ajit P. Shah to represent accused No. 3 so that his appeal also could be heard along with the other two companion appeals. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had committed offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was also further charged with an offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution may be shortly stated as follows :There is a theatre known as Mahalaxmi Loknatya Griha in Barshi in the district Solapur. The deceased Appa Kachare was the owner and proprietor of the said theatre. The theatre was exclusively meant for dance-cum-music programmes. One V...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chhotalal Doshi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT19(Bom)
1. The Government of India issued the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Act was enacted to enable the Central Government to restrict and regulate or prohibit imports and exports of goods by issuing an order. The Central Government publishes the import policy in the form of a book which is popularly known as 'Red Book' for every year. The Central Government from the year 1954 devised a scheme known as 'Export Promotion Scheme.' Under this Scheme, traders were to get themselves registered, then export goods and earn foreign exchange for the country and in return the Government gives certain incentives in the form of replenishment licences and also cash incentives. The Import Policy for the year 1983-84 prescribes that the Export House will be allowed to import OGL items against the REP Licence issued in their own name or transferred to them by others.The petitioner is carrying on business of financing R...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Dagdulal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)271; [1986]161ITR42(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN293(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was competent to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty for the assessment year 1958-59 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in law in invoking the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the assessment was completed under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the appeal was filed under that Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty on a disrupted Hindu undivided family was justified in law ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return within the time prescribed by law ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Alias Rikhman Mahabal Maurya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR175
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a conviction and sentence passed for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution was that complainant-Sushila Sampat Shinde lives with her mother, sisters, brother and a daughter aged 7 years named Ranjana in a hutment settlement on Khambadevi Road, at Dharavi, Kala Killa, Bombay. The hut in which the large family resides bears No. 1540. Appellant lives in the vicinity of the said hut and he is a married man with children. On 20-5-1978, Sushila and her mother had gone out in the morning for sale of bananas at the Sion Railway Station. This was usual for the mother and daughter, who used to return late in the night at about 9-30 to 10-00 p.m. Left behind were children, in charge of a 13 year old, Chhabootai-P.W. 3. Ranjana was playing outside with the children when she was called out by the appellant. The appellant took her to his own hut. The girl was placed on a cot and thereafter rap...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Industries Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD30(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri I. S. Nigam, Accountant Member - These two appeals, one relating to the assessment year 1980-81 and another relating to the assessment year 1981-82, filed by the assessee-company against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) VII, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a limited company. We were given to understand at the time of the hearing of the appeals that the assessee-company was the proprietor of Simplex Woollen Mills and besides manufacturing woollen cloth, were engaged in export of shoddy wollen blankets, blanketing cloth, blaxer, etc. Under the export promotion scheme of the Government of India, the assessee-company, in view of its exports, became eligible for import entitlement. These import entitlements were received during the previous years relevant to the assessment year 1980-81 and 1981-82 and were transferred to others for a price. The price, thus, rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »