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.
R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad and Fatechand Narsinghdas (Export Firm) Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Bom)44; [1987]168ITR619(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, we have to answer two questions in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions read thus :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action initiated under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in March, 1965, for the assessment year 1948-49 was valid and legal ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the return filed in the reassessment proceedings was valid and legal ?'2. The assessment year we are concerned with is the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee is M/s. R. B. Shreeram Durgaprasad & Fatechand Narsinghdas (Export firm), Tumsar. There is another firm called R. B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (Mining Firm). Both these firms kept common accounts. Their accounting year was the Samvat year. The year in question began on October 25, 1946, and ended on Novembe...
R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (Mining Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR549(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the assessee. It arises in peculiar circumstances and the answer that we give is limited to those circumstances.2. The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee filed a return on September 3, 1970. It was not accompanied by a balance-sheet or a trial balance. On January 11, 1971, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee under section 142(1) calling for a balance-sheet or a trial balance. The assessee did not comply with the notice. On March 22, 1971, the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under section 144. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thereagainst. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment on July 24, 1971.3. In the meantime, on April 26, 1971, the assessee made an application to the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment. It was the assessee's plea that it had been...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Antonetta D'Souza and Ors., etc. e ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom118
Couto, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Awards made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Margao, in four petitions for compensation filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The said four petitions were filed as a result of an accident which caused the death of three people and injured a fourth. The vehicle involved in the accident is the same and the victims of the accident were passengers travelling in the said vehicle. For this reason and since the issues raised in all the appeals are the same, this common judgment.2. An accident took place on 20th Dec., 1980 at Vazem, Shiroda, Goa, involving a bus No. GDT-2129 belongning to the respondent Teotonio Pereira which was being driven at the relevant time by the respondent Patric D'Souza. The vehicle went off the road while negotiating a turn and was balancing on the edge of the road. Some passengers tried to come out of the bus and then, thevehicle turned turtle and went down some ten metres away from the r...
Radheshyam G. Garg Vs. Safiyabai Ibrahim Lightwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom361; 1987(3)BomCR459; 1987MhLJ725
ORDER1. This petition has been filed by the original defendant tenant seeking to challenge the judgments and decrees of of both the lower Courts decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. The premises which are subject matter of the dispute in the present petition consists of one room in Ever Ready Cottage situate at Virar, taluka Vasai, District Thane. The said premises were let to the defendant in the year 1958 at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The said premises originally belonged to one Asmabai who on 1st Aug., 1975 executed a registered sale deed in favour of her three daughters, who were plaintiffs in the suit for possession. The present suit came to be filed on 2nd Oct., 1975 by the plaintiffs, the daughters of said Asmabai, after they had given to the defendant their notice of attornment dated 21st August 1975 wherein th...
Vithalrao S/O. Dattobaji Khandagale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR417
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Old Ceiling Act')2. The petitioner No. 1, the surplus holder, filed a return under section 12 of the Old Ceiling Act showing his total holding as 221.71 acres. The learned Assistant Collector, held by his original order dated 15- 11- 1970/6-12-1970 that the holding of the petitioner No. 1 was 246.40 acres . After determining the potkharab land as 6. 51 acres and after allowing the members of the family of the petitioner No. 1 who were six in number to retain 174 acres of land the Assistant Collector declared 37,03 acres as surplus land holding to the petitioner No. 1, the ceiling area for the village Paloti being 108 acres. The petitioner No. 1 challenged the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector by filing an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (For short , 'the M.R.T.'). The learned M.R.T. found that the findin...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vithal Shivanand Palekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR539; (1987)89BOMLR172
S.M. Daud, J.1. This judgment will rule upon an application for condonation of delay and the Maintainability of an appeal purporting to be under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act , 1973 (FERA).2. Respondent-hereinafter referred to as 'Palekar'-was served with a memorandum bearing No. T-4/19/DD/BKS/B/83 (ii) dated 23-2-1983 by the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay. This memorandum alleged that on a trip to United States of America, he had been given a Credit Card by Philips E. Carne of Johnson International, USA; that he had used the said Card for meeting certain personal expenses, and, that by so doing, he had contravened the provisions of sections 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the FERA. Palekar was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him. The reply given by Palekar did not satisfy the Adjudicating Officer. That Officer held that the charge was established and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,500/- against Palekar. Upon this, Palekar lodged an appeal with t...
Goa Municipal Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. Administrator of Goa, Daman ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR289
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to a Notification dated March 18, 1985 issued by, the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu and published in the Official Gazette of March 28, 1985. By the impugned notification the Administrator has constituted in respect of all Municipal Councils common cadres of the 24 posts set out in the notification. The notification is issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 72 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968. The posts set out in the notification are of employees belonging to Class III and Class IV servants. The challenge to the notification is based on the ground that the Administrator had no powers under sub-section (5) of section 72 to constitute a common cadre of the posts set out in the notification.2. Chapter V of the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act deals with the provisions regarding officers and servants of the Municipal Council...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdullabhai Hassanali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Bom)70; [1988]169ITR22(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question we are asked to answer in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose the penalty by passing an order under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer made the order of assessment on September 28, 1970. He noted in the order that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were started and required the issue of notice under section 274. The Income-tax Officer made the reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to determine the quantum of penalty only on February 15, 1973. He did so because the minimum penalty imposable when he made the assessment was Rs. 18,968. By February 15, 1973, the minimum penalty imposable had been reduced to Rs. 1,882 by reason of the quantum appeal filed by t...
B.W. Ramteke Vs. Board of Directors of the Mazagaon Dock Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR199
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the propriety and legality of an order terminating petitioner's services and seeks a direction that the said order be ignored and petitioner be given all the benefits available and attached to his employment.2. The questions that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the following background: -3. In or about January/February 1983, respondent No. 1 by an advertisement solicited applications for the post of Electrical Officers in the grade of 1470-50-1770-55-2045-60-2285-75-2510-80-2590 for their Nhava Yard Off-shore Fleet in the Nhava Yard. Petitioner was one of those who responded to the advertisement. He was interviewed, and after the requisite formalities, was appointed as an Electrical Officer in the aforesaid grade by letter dated February 28, 1984. The appointment letter is at Ex.'A' and term 2 thereof promised confirmation to the petitioner after the expiry of the pr...
Mohmedbhai Fatehbhai Vadevia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC641Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order No.S/49-5/83 T.s., dated 30-11-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are : The Customs Officers, Ahmedabad, detained the apellant while he was alighting from a private luxury bus. His baggage was checked in the presence of the panchas and they found out one National Panasonic Radio Cassette Recorder of Japanese make valued at Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant produced a baggage receipt dated 20-12-1982 in the name of one Mr. Venkataraman of Madras and a Radio licence No. 68628, dated 5-1-1983 issued in his cousin's name. When questioned, the appellant submitted that he had purchased the said Radio Cassette Recorder in open market and he was also given the baggage receipt. He pleaded that he is a bonafide purchaser. After the completion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Sections lll(d) and lll(p) of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »