Mumbai Court January 1987 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.
Harisha S/O Ramdeo Baheti (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR19
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, who were the plaintiffs before the 11th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No. 575 of 1986 have challenged the order passed by that Court on 4-10-1986 allowing the stranger's application to be joined as a co-defendant in the suit.2. The controversy covers a very narrow compass and it springs from the following undisputed facts. Plot No. 6/11 adjoining the Wadnera road at Amravati belongs to the plaintiffs and the adjoining land to the west of the building standing thereon belongs to the stranger (the non-applicant No. 2). Admittedly the ground floor has already been constructed on the plot belonging to the plaintiffs and this structure has been in existence since long before the institution of the present suit. The plaintiffs wanted to construct the first and second floors over the ground floor and for that they had submitted necessary application to the Amravati Municipal Corporation. It is contended ...
Kisan Mehta and Another Vs. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas398(Bom)
Suresh, J.1. While I must compliment the plaintiffs for their very gallant effort in exposing what they consider a public wrong, the constraints of a civil a civil action must necessarily deter me from giving any relief the them, despite invocations from Delhi to a liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps in matters of public interest litigation. The plaintiffs are public spirited citizens, well-known for their public battles to save Bombay and I am afraid that zeal would not do here. Of course, Mr. Cooper for the defendants describes this action as mala fide, though I must say that the plaintiffs herein cannot be considered as 'the idle and whimsical plaintiffs' as described elsewhere. Yet, when they choose to tread on wary grounds of civil law, they must show that they have a sure cause of action.2. The plaintiffs say that theirs is a quia timet action. Their case is that the defendants have indulged in fradulent misrepresentations mainly with a view to 'hoodwink' the public inves...
Lalit Bhaichand Ravani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC238; 1987(12)LC25(Bombay); 1987(28)ELT255(Bom)
ORDER1. Rule. Mr. Pochkhanwala waives service of notice. Rule heard by consent.2. By the present petition the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents who are the Customs Authorities of Bombay in not allowing the clearance of certain goods described as artificial fur cloth though the bill of entry filed by the petitioner for clearance has been assessed and full duty has already been paid. Admittedly the bill of entry describes the goods covered by that bill as artificial fur cloth. Admittedly again it was so assessed by the authorities and customs duty on the same has assessed by the authority has been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner paid the duty on 20th December 1986. Subsequently, however, when the petitioner went to take delivery of the goods respondent No. 5 in this petition, namely, the Assistant Collector of Customs in charge of Docks, stopped the release of the goods by ordering that the goods should be examined and he would pass subsequently the necessary...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohinidevi Mohunta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR557(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue arises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hare income of the assessee from the firm, M/s. K. G. Mohunta and Bros., is not the income of the assessee alone but was to be shared by three persons, namely, the assessee and her two minor sons ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee's the husband was a partner in a firm called M/s. K. G. Mohunta and Bros. when he died, he left the assessee, three sons and a daughter. The assessee was made a partner of the reconstituted firm under a deed dated October 29, 1970, with Geetadevi Mohunta and Rajmohan Mohunta as the her partners. The deed recited that on account of the demise of the assessee's husband, the original firm stood dissolved and his share in the partnership devolved upon his legal heirs, namely, the assessee and her three sons and daughter. Clause 6 of the partnership deed stated that the c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pyarchand Keshrimal Porwal (H.U.F.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1987]167ITR272(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue raises the following questions :'(1) Whether there was enough material on record to hold that the assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment was not reopened in a valid and legal manner and that the corresponding notice issued under section 148 was not valid and legal ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sanction accorded by the Board was not valid and proper ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was under an obligation to disclose the investments made in gold and gold ornaments in its return of income ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the reassessment proceeding ma...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vidarbha Housing Board
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR481(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Notices were issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee on March 15, 1972, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One notice opened with these words 'Whereas I have reason to believe that your income/the income of 1956-57 chargeable to tax for the assessment year in respect of which you are assessable, viz., 1957-58, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961'. The other notice opened with the same formula, except that the year first mentioned was 1957-58 and second the year 1958-59. Both notices informed the assessee that the Income-tax Officer proposed to reassess the income for the assessment years mentioned therein and called for returns. The only ground upon which the Income-tax Appellate. Tribunal has thought it fit to set aside these notices and, consequently, the initiation of proceedings under section 147 is that 'there was a real ambiguity in the notices'2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the assesse...
Dhanraj and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR557(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The following two questions are referred at the instance of the assessee under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was only a change in the constitution of the firm ? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there should have been two separate assessments for periods from 1st January, 1973 to 7th April, 1973 and 10th April, 1973 to 31st December, 1973 ?'2. This reference is concerned with the asst. yr. 1974-75. The assessee is a partnership firm. On 31st July, 1974 the firm filed two returns one for the period 1st January, 1973 to 7th April 1973 and the other for the period 8th April, 1973 to 31st December, 1973. The partnership was created originally by a deed dt. 5th January, 1971 in which 7 partners were admitted including one Smt. Kanchanbai Hukamchand Parekh who had 20% share in the profit and loss. She died on 7th April, 1973. Clause 13 of the deed provides that the partnership shall ...
Ganu Vs. M.V. Chitale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1547
Kurdukar, J.1. This writ petition must succeed only on the short ground that the authority which has passed the externment order has taken into account extraneous circumstances and the material which were I not the subject matter of the show cause notice dt. 6-11-1985.2. The petitioner is an externee who has externroent order dt. 29-4-86 Ex. 'B' which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dt. 28-7-86. The show cause notice at Exh. 'A' states:Following Cogn. & Non-Cognizable offences registered against you at Ulhasnagar Police Station.Thereafter in a tabular form a reference to various criminal cases pending against the petitioner has been made. At the end of the notice it is stated:That the witnesses to your above described acts and movements are not willing to come forward and depose against you in public by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their persons in that they apprehend to the safety of their person or property, if they do so....
Fourth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Sri M.V. Patel
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD104(Mum.)
1. The point in the appeals is a short one. It is concerned with the meaning of the word 'house' in Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') in relation to these cases, it is whether the building having several residential units is one house for the purpose of Section 5(1) (iv) to get the maximum relief.2. Among the assets included in the net wealth, an item is a share in an immovable property called 'Bhaveshnagar property'. The assessee is a co-owner along with two others, each having one-third share. The WTO fixed the value of the assessee's one-third share at Rs. 95,000 as against Rs. 84,667 returned by him, and allowed exemption on the full value under Section 5(1)(iv) in the original assessments. On account of an audit objection, the WTO started proceedings under Section 35 of the Act meaning to set right few mistakes one of them being about the exemption allowed in respect of Bhaveshnagar property. The WTO heard the party and passed orders which had the effect of...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. H.M. Dalal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD272(Mum.)
1. As common points are involved in both, these appeals by the revenue, they are heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is an individual. The relevant valuation dates are 31-10-1978 (Samvat year 2035) for the assessment year 1979-80 and 21-10-1979 (Samvat year 2036) for the assessment year 1980-81.3. The first common controversy is regarding the inclusion of the assessee's credit balance in CDS account of Rs. 82,762 in the assessment year 1979-80 and of Rs. 1,03,142 in the assessment year 1980-81. The Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the said amounts following the Tribunal Delhi Bench decision in WTO v. S.D. Nargolwala [1983] 5 ITD 690. The Tribunal, Special Bench, Bombay has since held in Smt. Sushilaben A. Mafatlal v. WTO [1986] 18 ITD 189 that the credit balance in CDS account is includible in the assessee's net wealth.Following the said decision, we vacate the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore those of the WTO for both the years.4. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »