Mumbai Court April 1986 Judgments
Sherpur Medical Research Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD303(Mum.)
1. This four appeals by the assessee have been heard together with the consent of the parties and are being decided by this common order.2. The assessee is an unlimited company incorporated with effect from 22-1-1981. The main objects of the assessee-company are to conduct research in the field of science to acquire and establish medical research and to run hospitals, dispensaries, nursing homes and to acquire, establish, provide medical aid running laboratories and factories for research in and production of chemicals, drugs and Pharmaceuticals. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee filed a return showing income at nil. In the relevant accounting year, the assessee had derived income by way of interest. The company had share capital of Rs. 62 lakhs out of which an amount of Rs. 59,13,000 had been given as loans to various companies, with the result that the assessee derived an interest income of Rs. 4,41,743. The assessee filed profit and loss account in which this receipt wa...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Richardson Hindustan Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD311(Mum.)
1. As common point arc involved in both these cross appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee-company manufactures drugs, Pharmaceuticals and fine chemicals. Its main medicinal products arc marketed under well known brand name 'Vicks'. It follows accounting year ending 30th June.3 to 6. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 7. The assessee-company was running a Mentha Research Demonstration Centre at Bilaspur in Uttar Pradesh. The raw material for manufacture of 'Vicks' products was mentha oil. This is derived from grass like peppermint plant 'Mentha Arvensis'. The assessee-company had set up a farm in 'Terai' area of Uttar Pradesh with headquarters at Bilaspur to grow Mentha Arvensis. The assessee-company encouraged cultivation of the said 'Mentha Arvensis' in the adjoining areas by other farmers.Before the ITO, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodkumar Jaichand Shah Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD220(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee from the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a registered firm. The regular assessment for 1979-80 had been completed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B of the Act on 1-6-1982. This assessment appeared to the Commissioner as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The facts are like this.3. The assessee is carrying on business as commission agents in textiles. On 19-1-1978, it had declared 202 high denomination notes under the High Denomination Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978. It had been stated in the said declaration that the money had been received in the usual course of its business as commission agents. At the time of assessment, it had been submitted before the ITO that the High denomination notes formed part of its cash balance on the relevant date 19-1-1978 which was Rs. 2,19,852. It may be mentioned here that the decision of the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Gajanan Deshpande Vs. Dhondiram Hari Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR581; (1986)88BOMLR351; 1986MhLJ709
S.N. Khatri, J.1. This is a landlord's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 2nd August, 1979 passed in Revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur.2. The material facts relied upon by both sides before me and which are not in dispute are these : The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereafter for short, 'the tenants') were holding Survey No. 74, 1 acre 2 gunthas, assessment Rs. 4/-, of village Kale in Kolhapur District as tenants of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly born on 2nd March, 1950 and became major on 2nd March, 1968. Hereafter the petitioner will be referred to as the 'landlord'. In 1973, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal suo motu started 32-G proceedings. By its order dated 24th December, 1973, it dropped these proceedings for the reasons that the landlord was a minor on the tiller's day (that is to say 1st April, 1957). In 1977 that Tribunal again initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and A...
Tag this Judgment!Kusta Balsu Kandnekar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR603; (1986)88BOMLR219; 1986MhLJ540
Masodkar, J.1. This appeal has been placed before us by reason of the order made by the learned Single Judge (Couto, J.) sitting at Goa, Panaji Bench, on September 13, 1985 1986 CriLJ 662. By that order, the learned Single Judge felt that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench, for the Court was competent to convert the order of acquittal and convict the appellant-accused under S. 302 of the Penal Code by reason of the evidence which indicated the complicity of the appellant-accused for having committed such an offence. In the view of the learned Judge, the conviction of the accused under S. 304, Part II of the Penal Code has resulted in miscarriage of justice.2. Briefly stated, that order came to be made in the appeal filed by the present appellant-accused, Kusta Balsu Kandnekar, being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1985. That appeal was filed through jail questioning his conviction by the Session Judge, Margao, for the offence under S. 304, Part II of the Penal Code and awarding th...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Oomerbhoy Wakf Trust Vs. Fourth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD171(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee. The proceedings relate to the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee is a wakf trust. It was created by a deed of trust dated 21-2-1938. The income of the trust is to be applied in terms of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the deed of trust which are reproduced below : 2. The trustees shall pay the net income of the trust funds to the said Ahmedbhoy Oomerbhoy during his life for his maintenance and support and after his death shall pay the net income of the trust funds to Bai Khatizabai, the wife of the said Ahmedbhoy Oomerbhoy during her life for her maintenance and support. 3. After the death of the survivor of the said Ahmedbhoy Oomerbhoy and the said Khatizabai the trustees shall distribute the net income of the trust funds among the male children of the said Ahmedbhoy Oomerbhoy and the descendants of such male children from generation to generation for their maintenance and support. 4. On the total extinction of male child or children ...
Tag this Judgment!KamruddIn Masjit Trust by Its Mutawali Trustee Shaikh Bashir Ismail Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR121; 1986MhLJ543
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises a question of some importance and one frequently arising in suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Rent Act) viz.---Can a rent collector file suit for possession?2. The suit property is that of a public trust. Claiming to be one of its trustees as also its rent collector, the plaintiff by his own notice terminated the defendant's tenancy and demanded arrears of rent and possession. There was no reply thereto nor compliance with demand made. The plaintiff thereupon filed the instant suit for possession and arrears. The main defence was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff, who claimed to be one of the trustees of the suit trust and/or its rent collector, was not entitled to sue the defendant. The trial Court rejected this defence, held the suit to be maintainable and, on merits, decreed the same. In defendant's appeal therefrom the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar Ganeshrao Mukhedkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR378
R.R. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner before us is a resident of Aurangabad. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The third respondent is the Registrar High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 2. The petitioner has passed the L.L.B, (New) Course Examination in the year 1978 from Marathwada University. He has enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 17th February, 1979. Initially, he was practising in the District Court at Nanded and from 27th August, 1981 on the establishment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioner is practising as an Advocate since 1979 till today. 3. On 22nd January, 1986 the 2nd respondent viz. the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, who here after will be referred to as the commission' , inserted an advertisement in the Daily Marathwada newspaper inviting applications for filling up 150 posts of the Civil Judges (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class). The Petitioner is ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra Saigal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR25
A.D. Tated, J.1.This Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 21st November, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, rejecting the application of the petitioner for return of the property which was seized by the police in Criminal Case No. 84 of 1984 and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The facts necessary for the decision of this petition in brief are that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 1,22,000/- from the complainant on 3-2-1984 and on that date the petitioner-accused executed one Power of Attorney, two Promissory Notes, one for Rs. 87,000/- and another for Rs. 85,000/- and also sworn one affidavit. According to the complainant, the accused promised to sell to him Flat No. 306 and two garages situated in Pushpakunj Co-operative Hous...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Nisha Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC153Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collelctor of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot has filed these stay applications along with the appeals against the order No.S/49-286/86L + 31 appeals dated 8-11-85 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay under which he disposed of all- the 32 sets of appeals of M/s Nisha Chemicals, Bombay allowing the same. Therefore, through the appeals against the Collector (Appeals) Order, the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot requests the setting aside of the appellate order and restoration of the original order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs Kandla. Pending the hearing and decision of the appeal of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot, he has, through the present applications, sought stay of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellant Collector, Shri N.K. Pattekar stated that M/s Nisha Chemicals, Bombay filed 32 Bills of Entries with the Custom House, Kandla for the clearance o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »