Mumbai Court October 1986 Judgments
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1986
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC351Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order bearing No. S/49-686/82-M, dated 30.9.82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The Deputy Collector of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department levied a penalty of Rs. 3,03,937/- on M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., Bombay who are steamer agents under Section 116 of the Customs Act. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal holding that as per provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellants to deposit the amount of penalty. The appellants had not deposited the amount of penalty levied.3. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Deepak Motiwala of M/s.Motiwala & Co., made the following submissions :- (a) That the appellants are the agents of a foreign company which had gone into liquidation; (b) That the Appellate Collector had not heard the appellants before rejecting the appeal; (c) The Appellate Collector had not given any opportunity ...
Tag this Judgment!Knik Chemical Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD302(Mum.)
1. These are the cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue relating to the assessment year 1980-81. The grounds of appeal in the assessee's appeal are as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that bonus of Rs. 7,000 is payable to directors is not justifiable. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that membership fees paid to club of Rs. 4,150 for the director's is not justifiable. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the ITO on account of the excess remuneration paid to the directors.2. The assessee is a company. The assessee carries on the profession of rendering services as chemical engineers, importing certain technical know-how developed by it, in collaboration with foreign collaborator Dr. Herman Stage and also erects chemical plant for various par...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Son of Dashrath and ors. Vs. NuruddIn Son of Kazi NasiruddIn and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR513
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 Rama Dashrath seeks to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by issuing a writ of certiorari or some other writ for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Nanded, on 21-4-1976 in File No. 75. 1. HTA. Clause. 14 and subsequently confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 76/WTN. App. 20 dated 28-2-1979.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:Survey No. 74 admeasuring 15 acres and 36 gunthas of Nanded was admittedly an inam land. One Nuruddin (senior) was 'the original Inamdar. Bashiruddin, Nuruddin and Karimuddin were the sons of Nuruddin (senior). Nurrudin who is respondent No.1 herein is the son of Nasiruddin (Respondent No.1 Nuruddin hereinafter will be referred to as Nuruddin Junior). 3. It is not much disputed that according to the Muntakhab No. 1247 of 1324 Fasli the whole inam including the su...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Rambhao Khandwekar and ors. Vs. Proshottam Alias Dadasahib ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR696
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal by the original defendant Nos. 1 and 5 is directed against a decree for possession and mesne profits passed against them and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who were defendant Nos. 2 to 4 before the trial Court.2. The property known as 'Kailash Talkies' was owned by the plaintiff-Gangadhar and he entered into an agreement on 3rd October, 1946 to lease it out to the first-defendant Proshottam and one Dattatrya Jalgaonkar, since deceased. Dattatraya Jalgaonkar dies leaving surviving him his widow Manormabai and two sons-Sudhir and Sharad, who were defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Manormabai dies in July, 1972 leaving behind her the two sons and one daughter Asha alias Madhuri, the defendant No. 2. The site under the Kailash Talkies was open at the time of the agreement. The material terms of the agreement were that the lessees should construct a cinema theatre on the open site at the cost of Rs. 50,000/-, the rent should be Rs. 6,000/- per annum, out of which Rs. 1,200...
Tag this Judgment!Liwe International and ors. Vs. Asst. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1990(28)LC102(Bombay)
G.D. Kamat, J. 1. This petition challenges two orders of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, the one dated 5.5.1986 and the other dated 28th July 1986 and prays for a further direction that the goods detained be released in terms of the adjudication order dated 3rd January 1984 made by the Collector of Customs and affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay, for short the Appellate Tribunal.2. The essential controversy projected in this petition finally took a turn and therefore requires the narration of facts as otherwise what is projected in the petition may be lost sight of.3. The first petitioner is a partnership firm of which petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are its partners. The petitioner-firm is engaged in manufacturing jeans and garments which they sell in the local market and also export to overseas customers. As the holders of Letters of authority of Binod Mills Company Limited, M/s. Anna E...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Ibrahim Janmohammad Vs. Tekchand Alias Ravindra Fakirchand Rath ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR436; (1987)89BOMLR39; 1986MhLJ902
A.D. Tated, J.1. This Civil revision application was heard and was allowed by me on September, 1, 1986. While deciding this Civil revision it was not noticed that this High Court by Notification No. P. 0102/77 in suppression of the High Court notification No. P. 6324/60 dated September 30, 1966, August 4, 1972, August 1, 1974, P. 0124/63 dated February 17, 1972, P. 0113/68 dated November 21, 1972, P. 0601/55 dated May 20, 1976, P. 0102/77 dated September 28, 1979, and P. 3604/74 dated June 23, 1980, in exercise of the power conferred under section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was pleased to make amendments to Schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and those amendments came into force with effect from October 1, 1983. Code Procedure Code, 1908, was extensively amended by the Central Government by Act No. 104 of 1976 and Rule 3-A was inserted in Order 41 of the Code. This High Court while amending the Civil Procedure Code in 1983 by notification No. 0102/77 dropped R. 3-A...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of Mount Nepean Trust Vs. First Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD365(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1973-74. An interesting point has emerged out of this appeal. The question's whether the transfer of the property for a stated consideration as per the trust deed would give rise to a gift, when its market value on the date of transfer was higher than the stated consideration.2. The assessee is a trust called 'Mount Nepean Trust', which was created originally by a deed of trust on 2-8-1928 and varied by the deed of revocation and appointment of trust property dated 2-8-1945.The trust was created by one Ardeshir Bomanji Dubash of Bombay, Parsi inhabitant. By the original deed dated 2-5-1928, the Mount Nepean property was settled upon trust together all movables in future brought into or about 'Mount Nepean' by the settlor or his wife Maneckbai Ardeshir Dubash in substitution or addition to the movables then lying there. Shri Ardeshir Bomanji Dubash and Smt. Maneckbai Ardeshir Du...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Taparia Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD445(Mum.)
1. These appeals are by the assessee. They relate to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. Since a common issue is involved, they are disposed of by this order. The assessee is the karta of a HUF. The facts as ascertained are that the assessee paid out of his individual funds an amount of Rs. 7,948 towards tax of the HUF. This was the amount of tax paid relevant to the valuation date 31-3-1972.Thereafter, another amount of Rs. 3,816 was paid in the previous year for which the valuation date was 31-3-1975. Thus, for each of the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, the WTO held that under the provisions of Section 4(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') the amount of Rs. 7,948 has to be considered as the assessee's wealth since the property of the assessee had been impressed with the nature of HUF property. The plea of the assessee that no property remained in existence and, therefore, nothing could be included in the net wealth was not accepted by the WTO. He thus brought to t...
Tag this Judgment!Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (i) Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Reg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR572; [1989]65CompCas259(Bom)
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Three directors of a company are non-residents two ordi narily residing in the United States of America while one in the p=09 United Kingdom. These directors represent the parent company and in that capacity are on the board of directors of the company in ques tion. They themselves were entitles for the payment of dividend from the company of which they are directors and for not having paid the amount or not separated the said amount due to non-payment they faced prosecution. Ultimately all the requisite amounts of dividend after permission of the Reserve Bank of India have been remitted to them. The complaint is filed after this payment when the default if any was already rectified. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act as also all these features are not properly considered by the learned Magistrate. All these characteristic features are enveloped in this proceeding which make the continuation of the proceeding a sheer waste of public money time and energy and...
Tag this Judgment!Chawla and Sons and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: 1991(34)LC280(Bombay)
ORDERR.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner carry on the business, inter alia, of wine wholesalers, distributors and exporters. They have obtained what is called a valid REP licence which permits them to import, among other things, ethyl alcohol which is mentioned at item 158 in Appendix 3 of the ITC Policy for 1983-84. After the petitioners submitted their bill of entry the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay, examined the question as to whether the item which is actually imported under the REP licence is ethyl alcohol as mentioned at item 158 of Appendix 3 as mentioned above. He found a fact which is not disputed that what is imported by the petitioners under the said licence is 6 year-old Vatted Malt Scotch Spirit. The Deputy Collector noticed that ethyl alcohol which is used in the manufacture, among other things, of dyes intermediates is totally different from the ethyl alcohol which forms a major component of old vatted malt scotch whisky which is imported by the petitioners. He, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »