Mumbai Court June 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.
Vipro Products Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD31(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19-11-1983 for the assessment year 1978-79.2. Only issue canvassed before us was the disallowance of Rs. 17,784 paid as remuneration to professional director, Shri Nalin Thakor, by the company in the period under consideration. A sum of Rs. 37,784 was paid to the above director for the services rendered by him to the company. Above payment was claimed as deduction on the basis of agreement dated 29-11-1975 entered by the company with the above director. Under Sections 309(1) and 310 of the Companies Act, 1956, Government of India, vide its letter dated 13-12-1976, had considered payment of remuneration of Rs. 20,000 to this director as reasonable.The IAC (Assessment), therefore, considered payment in excess of Rs. 20,000 has not been for the business of the company and disallowed the same under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). On appeal, above disallowance was maintained by the...
Gulabchand Daulatram Agarwal Vs. Datta Mandir Sansthan Trust and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR528
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The question involved in this Second Appeal is one of interaction between the provisions of Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and section 28 thereof.The question can be simplified and stated briefly as follows:---'A' leased certain lands to 'B' for a period of 10 years. After expiry of the lease, 'A' becomes entitled to possession of the land. But 'A' does nothing against 'B' and 'B' continue to be in possession without payment or rent to 'A'. After nearly 35 years 'A' sells the same land to 'C' . Question is as to whether 'A' had not lost his title to the lands by virtue of the provisions of section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 read with Article 139 thereof and whether 'B' had any subsisting title which he could convey to 'C'.This, in short, is question when reduced down to its bones.2. Let me now state the facts of the present case:---The suit lands admittedly belonged, originally, to Suryajirao Naik Nimbalkar. They were the Jagir lands governed by the Wa...
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC584Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order bearing No. S/49-235/83-M, dated 31-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The applicant's claim for refund of duty on shortages was rejected by the Assistant Collector as barred under Section 27(1). On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) also rejected the appeal on the same ground.3. During hearing of this appeal, Shri Phadkar urged that Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. is wholly owned by Government of India.Therefore, the extended period of limitation, namely, one year prescribed under Section 27(1) should apply.5. The contention of Shri Phadkar has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant is a Company. The Government and Government Companies are two distinct entities. The benefit of enlarged period of limitation is available only to the Government and not to Government Companies.Therefore, I see no merit in this contention of Shri Phadkar. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected....
Kishore Kumar Ganguly Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD23(Mum.)
2. The assessee, Kishore Kumar, is a film artiste. He owned a plot of land on which there was partially constructed house. This plot was in the name of his wife Mrs. Ruma Gangooly but admittedly the title vested in the assessee, Kishore Kumar. On 17-5-1958, Mrs. Ruma and the assessee executed a trust deed in respect of the said partially constructed house. In the trust deed, they described themselves as settlors and appointed themselves as trustees. It was specifically mentioned that the assessee was owner of the property. The main covenants were as follows : (i) The trustees would allow the assessee, Kishore Kumar, to occupy the entire house or such portion thereof as he may choose ; (ii) The unoccupied portion, if any, may be let out and in that event rent would be receivable by the assessee, Kishore Kumar ; (iii) After the death of the assessee, Kishore Kumar, the trustees shall stand possessed of the house for the assessee's son Amit Kumar absolutely ; (iv) If Amit Kumar dies befo...
Sharad D. Muni (Huf) Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD28(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1981-82.The assessee had taken on rent certain premises from Goswami-V.P.Maharaj on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200. These premises were situated in Bhuleshwar which is a commercial locality. The assessee sublet the said premises to Dena Bank on monthly rent of Rs. 6,550. The municipal corporation imposed additional taxes because of the fact that the premises had been let out on higher rent. Excess tax imposed by the municipal corporation was payable by the assessee while the original tax was payable by the landlord of the assessee. The assessee had paid Rs. 33,742 as excess municipal tax in the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1980-81 and deduction was allowed to the assessee from the income derived from subletting in respect of the said amount. However, in the accounting year with which we are concerned in this appeal, the assessee recovered the said amount of Rs. 33,742 from Dena Bank. This amount w...
The Chief Revenue Controlling Authority (Revenue), Secretariat, Panaji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom370; 1986(3)BomCR522; (1986)88BOMLR423; 1986MhLJ622
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under S. 57(2) of the Stamp Act, 1899.2. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows:-One Luis Guilherme Dias Colaco along with his sons Audio, Francisco and Alberto executed a document entitled 'Deed of Settlement'. In the said document, Luis Colaco was referred to as 'the Settlor'. The relevant recitals in the Deed of Settlement are to the effect that the Settlor is the absolute and exclusive owner in title and possessor of two landed properties, one known as 'MADDLEM', situated at village Benaulim and the other a house property at Margao town. It is also recited in the deed that the consideration for the Deed of Settlement is the natural love and affection which the Settlor bears for his sons on whom the property was being settled and to distribute his property among the settles to have them settled in life. The further object of the Settlor as recited in the Deed is to account for the future legitimate shares to which the settles mi...
Kodak Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD213a(Mum.)
1. This Special Bench was constituted to consider the question whether the expenses incurred on repairs and maintenance of the flats provided rent-free by the employer-company to its employees is to be included under Section 40A(5)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').There was a difference of opinion between some Benches of the Tribunal on this point.2. The assessee-company had incurred expenditure of Rs. 26,952 on (a) repairs, (b) paintings and (c) maintenance charges of flats (paid to housing societies) in respect of three flats (in multi-storeyed buildings) which had been taken on lease by the assessee-company. The details of the expenditure are as under :Description of Rent Maintenance Replastering Miscellaneous building charges paid and painting Repairs to society charges and Daisyle 10,761 3,600 6,415) 755 + 3,630) Darshan 10,730 1,800 2,480) 1,622 Cynthia 16,354 1,800 4,760 90 The IAC treated both the rent of said accommodation as well as the aforesaid expenses on re...
Ramanlal Vadilal Shah and Others Vs. Lalitkumar Ranchhodlal and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR265; (1986)88BOMLR403
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in the alternative a revision petition against the order dated 9th April 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay raises an interesting question about interpretation of Sec. 87 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Trade Mark Act)2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated as follow :The petitioners are partners of Eupharma Laboratories, which is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture of the medicinal goods. Respondents No. 1 Lalitkumar is the Company Secretary of Pfizer Incorporated of U.S.A., a public limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies. Act, 1913.The respondent on behalf of Pfizer Incorporated filed a criminal complaint case before the trial Magistrate on 22nd March 1982 alleging that the present petitioners have committed an offence punishable under sections 78 and 79 of the Ac...
Mahendranath Vs. Nalini Vallabhdas Shah (Miss)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR510
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Judgement suit instituted in the year 1976 has yet remained undecided while in between all this period there have been interim applications one after another for striking out the defence of the petitioner who claims tenancy under the respondent. In my opinion, having regard to all the features in proper context this is a fit case where interference is necessary even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since there is an error apparent on the face of the record. To understand the thrust of the controversy only a few features need the stated. Reference to the prominent landmarks in the proceeding would make the situation clear.2. The respondent herein filed judgement Suit Bearing Number R.A.E & R. Suit No. 337/1894 of 1976 against the petitioner on the ground of rental arrears being for more than six months and also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. This suit was filed in the year 1976. Standard rent application was filed in the same year being ...
Ram Nagappa Shetty Vs. Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR362; (1986)88BOMLR409; [1987]62CompCas10(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of pendse j. allowing a chamber summons for amendment of a plaint ' subject to the contention o limitation to be raised by defendants'. The appellant is one of the five defendants to the suit.2. The plaintiffs (the first respondent to the appeal) are a nationalised bank. Defendant No. 1 is public limited company of which defendants nos. 2,3 and 4 were, at the relevant time, directors. On august 21, 1973, defendant no.1 asked the plaintiffs for a packing credit loan for the export of diamonds. on August 24, 1973, the plaintiffs sanctioned the loan for Rs. 7,25,000. In connection therewith, defendant No 1 executed certain documents. On September 28, 1973, defendant No.1. His resignation was accepted on October 27, 1973, and this was communicated to the Registrar of Companies. on November 22, 1973, certain further documents were executed. According to the plaintiffs, these included an individual deed of guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »