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.
Jainarayan Babulal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Bom)201; [1988]170ITR399(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, is made at the instance of the assessee. The question that is referred reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 18th November, 1963, imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000 under s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 is sustainable in law ?'2. The assessment year we are concerned with is the asst. yr. 1950-51. The previous year for this assessment year is the Samvat year ending Diwali, 1949. The assessee is an HUF which derives income from business in cotton, cotton seeds, oilcakes and grains and a business called 'Goenka Cotton Company'. In the personal account of one Babulal, Karta of the HUF, in the books of Goenka Cotton Company, three cash credit entries appeared thus :Rs. 17,000 on 9th November, 1948' 5,000 on 12th November, 1948' 2,600 on 15th November, 1948---------24,600---------In regard to these three entries, a statement was made before the ITO by Babulal. It...
K.T. Saoji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: [1987]165ITR397(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee.'Is not the decision of the Tribunal confirming the gross profit rate of 12% contrary to the evidence and material on record, especially the agreements between the assessee and other pharmaceutical companies, bills, correspondence, etc, whereby it was established that the assessee could get a profit between 5% and 7% only ?'2. The assessee deals in medicines. He sells products manufactured by different manufacturers such a Pfizer, Warner, etc. For the assessment year ending 1967, the assessee showed a gross profit of Rs. 55,484 as per his account books to which the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,917. While the assessee's statement about the rate of commission was accepted in respect of Pfizer and Warner products, it was not so done in respect of the commission given by the other companies. The assessment order of the Income-tax Officer gives no reason as to why the book entries were ...
Kumar Prabhulal Shah and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(28)ELT193(Bom)
1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are aimed against the rejection of applications moved by petitioners for refund of Additional Duty levied and paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. The eight petitions afore-mentioned arise out of imports of Sorbitol Solution, Phenol USP, Phenol and Diethylene Glycol between 1980 and 1985. Upon the arrival of the consignments the importer-petitioners tendered Bills of Entry. In these Bills, the product imported was stated to be one of the afore-mentioned four, the column meant for Customs Tariff heading showing '29.01/45' and that for column C.E.T. Item mentioning the numeral '68'. Additional Duty was recovered on the consignment along with the Customs Duty payable. A series of petitions came to be filed in this Court questioning the recovery of Additional Duty upon products imported, it being contended that they were exempted from such duty under Notification issued vide Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1...
Meghji Jetha Shah Vs. Kalyanji Najik Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Bom273; 1988(1)BomCR263; (1987)89BOMLR107; 1987MhLJ254
ORDER1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 13th November 1986 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court Greater Bombay inshort Cause Suit NO. 3172 of 1984 filed by the Respondent under s. 6 of the Specific Relief Acr of recovery of possession of the suit premises I,r Shop No. 20 Municiple Market at Borivili on the averments that he was carrying ongrocery business in those premises since the year 1971 and while he was in settled possession of the permises andwas running his grocery business he has without due procees of law forcibly dispossessedbyt he present Petitiner on 12the April, 1984 The Respondent took out a Notice Of Motion for appointment of Court Receiver with a dirction toappoint himas agent and allow him to run the business of Bharat Stores whichhe was runing tillhe has dispossed which the was running tillhe was dispossessed on 12th april, 1984. In suport of the Notice of Motion, the respondent (platintiff) filed his affidavit and produted vari...
Ganesh V.N. Panvelcar and ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat of Verem-betim-reis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR98
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for development as sought by the application dated April 11, 1984. The permission was sought in accordance with Regulation 83 of Village Panchayats Regulations, which inter alia, provides that no person shall erect or commence to erect within limits of village, any building without the previous permission of the Panchayat. Respondent No. 1 is a Gram Panchayat of Verem-Betim-Reis Magos, while respondent No. 2 was working as the Sarpanch at the time of filing of the petition. We are informed at the bar that respondent No. 2 has ceased to be the Sarpanch after fresh elections to the Panchayat were held. This subsequent development makes no difference to the relief sought as the petitioners are not seeking any relief personally against respondent No. 2.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 are owners of the property known ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radhadevi D. Daga and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: [1987]167ITR888(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Since a common question is required to be answered in these two matters, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The referred question, which is at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in determining the income of the minor child of the assessee by way a share in the firm which is includible in the assessment of the assessee under section 64(ii), such income of the minor child is to be reduced by carry forward and set off of the share of the minor child by way of loss in the firm for the preceding assessment year ?'2. M/s R. B. Bansilal Abirchand is a firm duly constituted under a deed of partnership dated May 15, 1955. The partnership was not to be dissolved on the death of a partner but was to be carried on with the legal heirs of the deceased partner as partner in place of the deceased. In case the heirs were minors, they were to be deemed to have been admitted to the benefits of the partnersh...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Deorao Shrawan Maundekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Bom)71; [1988]169ITR19(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. The questions that are posed read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment of section 271(1)(c)(iii) which is effective from April 1, 1968, was applicabl ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment of section 274(2) which is effective from April 1, 1971, was applicabl ?2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessment for this assessment year was completed on January 11, 1960, and the total income was assessed at Rs. 6,517. In December, 1964, a search at the assessee's business and residential premises yielded material which showed that income relating to the concerned assessment year had not been fully disclosed. The assessment was thereupon reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under section 148 was served on the assessee on Mar...
Mahadu Dipa Koli Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Shahajadhi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR494; 1987MhLJ813
Sharad Manohar, J.1. A very narrow, but very interesting question is raised by Mr. Desai in this appeal concerning the provisions of section 85 and 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the said Act') read with section 32-G of the said Act.2. The facts are very simple. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before me (since deceased, through his legal representatives), was admittedly the tenant in respect of the land which is the subject matter of this appeal. In fact, he was a tenant of a piece of land of which suit land formed a part. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were owners of this piece of land. Without entering into the other part of this litigations, all that needs to be stated herein is that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had made an application to the Tenancy Court for recovery of possession of the land lease by them to the plaintiff under section 32 read with section 29 of the said Act on the ground of their personal bona fide ...
Kamlakant Ramchandra Gadkari Vs. Rangrao Ghanshyam Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR13
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Chandur Railway on 24th April, 1986 overruling the objections raised by the judgment-debtor to the decree of eviction has been the subject-matter of revision before this Court.2. The controversy covers a very narrow compass. The decree-holder-opponent obtained a decree for eviction against the petitioner-judgment-debtor in Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 1981. In pursuance of this decree an execution has been filed before the trial Court. It may be pointed out at this stage that the decree obtained from the trial Court was a compromise decree. The judgment-debtor recorded his objection to the execution. The first and foremost objection was that the decree for possession is null and void in view of the judgment of this Court which has declared the notification issued under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order as unconstitutional. The trial Court on hearing both the parties overruled this objection. This order ha...
Karnu Son of Ragho Birande Vs. Bali Sitaram Awari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR689; 1987MhLJ718
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act).Briefly, the facts are that originally suo motu proceedings were started in respect of the filed S. No. 1/5 admeasuring 3 acres of village Vilapur under section 46(1) of the Tenancy Act for transfer of ownership of the said field in favour of the recorded tenants Antu Ragho and Sitaram Dhondu. Both the recorded tenants died during the pendency of the case. The respondent No. 1 is the legal representative of the deceased Sitaram and the respondents 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the decreased Antu. One Bapurao was the original tenure holder of the suit field. The learned Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short the A.L.T.) after making necessary enquiry, by its order dated 15-7-1966, held that the respondents 1 to 4 were the statutory owners of the suit field under section 16(1) of the Tenancy Act. Accordin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »