Mumbai Court March 1986 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.
Fifth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Savitri T. Mehta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD19(Mum.)
1. These appeals filed by the revenue are against the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals)/AAC to value the unquoted equity shares of companies under the yield method instead of under the break up method prescribed by Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules') as was done by the WTO.2. The learned departmental representative, Shri Prakash, submitted to us that Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') itself starts with the opening words 'subject to any rules made in this behalf and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of CWT v. Sripat Singhania [1978] 112 ITR 363, CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1979] 117 ITR 443 and Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 ITR 258 has laid down that Rule 1D is binding on the revenue authorities and the appellate authorities. Our attention was invited to two decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Smt. Pramila Devi Jayaswal v. WTO [1985] 11 ITD 614 (Cal.)and WTO v. Mrs. Ritu Nanda (1985] 14 ITD 269 (Delhi), where the valuatio...
Hindustan Trading Co. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD69(Mum.)
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether fruits and vegetables are to be considered as 'agricultural primary Commodities' to extend the special deduction under Section 80HHC (2)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the export turnover.2. The assessee, a firm, is carrying on business of buying and exporting mainly fruits and vegetables to foreign countries. In the assessment framed by the ITO, he had treated fruits and vegetables marketed by the assessee out of India as not 'agricultural primary commodities'. On that premise, deduction under Section 80HHC had been given aggregating to Rs. 10,80,840. This consisted of two items. One was on the total export of Rs. 3,76,38,584, calculated at one per cent, to result in a deduction of Rs. 3,76,396, vide Section 80HHC(1)(a). He had also given five per cent deduction on the incremental turnover of export in this year over the previous year under Section 80HHC(1)(b).This deduction was Rs. 7,04,444. The Commissioner consid...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Associated Dichem Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC54(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is the reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The following question has been referred to us :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was not competent to revise the order of assessment for the period from 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963, passed on 11th October, 1966, after the expiry of two years from the date of passing of the said assessment order by exercising power under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended on 1st July, 1965 ?'2. The respondents, M/s. Associated Dichem Corporation, was a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the period 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963. For the said period the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice in form 27 for assessment under section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The notice was served on 23rd August, 1966. The assessment order was passed on 11th October, 1966. The Assistant Com...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Sunderdas Har ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC450(Bom)
M.H. Kania, A.C.J.1. This is a reference under section 23(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 and section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. This reference should correctly have been divided into four references according to the periods of assessments. The assessments in respect of two of the periods are under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, one under the Bombay Sales Tax (No. 2) Ordinance, 1952 and one assessment is for a period during which the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was in force. However, there is no material difference in the provisions of these two Acts and the said Ordinance in connection with the questions with which we are concerned and the reference arises on a single application made against the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in a single revision application, namely, Revision Application No. 33 of 1975 which was decided on 26th March, 1976. In view of this, we are disposing of the reference as a single reference. No objection has been raised to our following th...
Siemens India Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC40(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The applicant M/s. Siemens India Limited, are registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The applicants filed their returns under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, within the prescribed period, that is to say, before 14th May, 1965. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer by his assessment order dated 20th April, 1967, granted to the applicants a set-off to the tune of Rs. 88.237. In respect of this assessment order of 20th April, 1967, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, in exercise of his power of suo motu revision under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, issued a notice dated 1st March, 1972, proposing to revise the order of the Sales Tax Officer granting the set-off. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 30th April, 1972, revised the order of the Sales Tax Officer and reduced the amount of set-off by a sum of Rs. 8,902.12. The applicants filed an appeal from this o...
Laxman Shankar Patil Vs. Gopal Asaram Sharma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR605; 1986MhLJ451
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition challenges an interlocutory order (in a pending election dispute) appointing, in the ends of justice, a Commissioner for the limited purpose of inspection.2. The election relates to Ward No. 16, Shahada Municipal Council. The said elections were held on 25th April, 1985. The petitioner who polled 264 votes as against the first respondent's 262 votes) was declared elected by a margin of two votes. This was followed by an election petition by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the respondent') under sections 21 and 22 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent applied for inspection. By its order dated 7th September, 1985, the District Court allowed the said application. Hence this petition.3. Now, it is not the law that inspection can never be granted. Courts discretion to permit inspection is undoubted. However, this discretion is not to be exercised lightly or as a matter of course, all the more so in an election dispute....
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. M.S. Bhivandiwala and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR495
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th September, 1984 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 3783/MW of 1983 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') against the respondent No. 1 -accused for the offences under section 274(1) read with section 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (Bombay Act No. III of 1888) (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.M.C. Act') as barred by time.2. The petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay filed a complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, against the respondent No. 1 -accused for the offence punishable under section 274(l) read with section 471 of the B.M.C. Act. It was alleged that on 7th March, 1983 the Junior Engineer of the Corporation on inspection and examination o...
State of Maharashtra Vs. AustIn Anthony D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR44
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th July, 1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasai, in Criminal Case No. 1299 of 1978 acquitting the respondent-accused driver of on S.T. bus-of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. and section 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939.2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent-accused lie in a very narrow compass. The accused on 18th July, 1978 was driving State Transport Bus No. MHF 481 plying between Arnala and Virar. He left Arnala at about 2 p.m. At a short distance from Arnala Bus Station there is a building where the Bank of Maharashtra is housed and near that building there is a sharp curve. The bus driving from Arnala to Virar has to travel from west to east and hear the Maharashtra Bank building it has to take a sharp turn towards north. While the bus driven by the accused was negotiating the curve near the Maharashtra Bank building, t...
Estate Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD287(Mum.)
1. The distinct grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are two.It arises out of the assessment for 1978-79.2. Before mentioning about the ground taken up, we may furnish some introductory facts. The assessee owned the estate of three villages, Bhayandar, Meera and Ghodbunder, in Thana Taluka of Thana District.They had been once devised in favour of Laxman Ramchandraji of Bombay by the then British Government by means of a grant made in 1870. The assessee had acquired the rights in the estate in 1945. The collector of Thana had recognised the assessee as the estate holder and its name had been registered in the record of rights. Disputes started by the advent of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which came into force on 28-12-1948. The Government issued notification under the said Act on 14-7-1949 applying the provisions of the said Act to these lands of the assessee. By another notification dated 19-12-1949, issued under the provisions of the same Act, it decla...
Dattaram Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director Maharashtra Emplo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR512; (1986)88BOMLR348; (1987)ILLJ9Bom; 1986MhLJ646
1. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the act') is a welfare legislation designed to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury. Sub-section 3 of S. 1 of the Act which deals with the commencement and territorial application provisions enables the Central Government by a notification in the official gazette to bring the act into force for different states or for different parts thereof. The act applied in the first instance to all factories but Sub-s. 5 of S. 1 enables the State and Central Government to extend the provisions of the Act to any other establishment or class of establishments by notification in the official gazette.2. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-s. 5 of S. 1 of the Act the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 18th September, 1978 extending with effect from 12th November, 1978 all the provisions of the Act to classes of establishments given in the Schedule. Item 3 of para 3 of the Schedule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »