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.
Polestar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (Airport)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arise out of and is directed against Order No.S/10-2779/86 ACC(IV), dated 28.10.1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Airport), Bombay. The appellants M/s. Polestar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. imported 100 pieces of Tape Deck Mechansim and claimed clearance under OGL against Item 565(21) of Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I of the Import Policy 1985-88 (for short the Policy). The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the Tape Deck Mechanism contained recording head and four electronic circuitry. The Customs took the view that the imported goods were covered by Entry 610 of Appendix 3 Part-A of the Policy and as such required a valid licence.2. The Collector of Customs, Airport, who held the enquiry, stated in his order that on inspection of the sample he found that there are four printed circuit boards and one of them has several mounted electronic components and others have connectors and the whole system has been connected through wires. He, therefore, ...
Ramkrishna Bajaj Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD53(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) IX, Bombay.2. The assessee is an individual. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee held 6,049 equity shares of Bajaj Auto Ltd. An intimation was sent to the Income-tax Officer by letter dated 26-3-1979 received in the Income Tax Office on 29-3-1979, which reads as follows : This is to state that I am holding 6,049 Equity Shares of Bajaj Auto Ltd. as Capital Investment but as of today I declare that I have converted the 3,000 Equity Shares of Bajaj Auto Ltd. into my stock-in-trade and accordingly from today I am holding the said 3,000 Equity Shares of Bajaj Auto Ltd. as my stock-in-trade and not as a Capital Investment. I may also inform you that I propose to join others as a partner in the business of inter alia dealing in shares and propose to contribute 3,000 Equity Shares. Stock-in-Trade as my Capital contribution in the partnership firm proposed to be ...
Shah Granites (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD282(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assesses against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1980-81. It relates to the computation of capital employed for the purposes of deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee was a partner in a firm running an industrial undertaking known as Bombay Bngg. Industries. The firm was allowed under Section 80J deduction for 3 years, namely, assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80. Thereafter the business of the firm is taken over by the assessee 'vide deed of retirement dated 17-1-1979 with effect from 1-1-1979. Various assets and liabilities of the business of the firm are taken over by the assessee at their book value. The dispute in this appeal is restricted to the value of plant and machinery taken over by the assessee at their book value at Rs. 4,44,467 whereas its written down value as per the income-tax records of the firm was Rs. 3,54,666. The assessee claims that in computing the capital em...
Mehdi Mandil Vs. Trans Sharjah Aviation Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas606(Bom)
S.N. Variava, J.1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants describing them as a partnership firm operating under4 a municipal trade licence issued under the law of the United Arab Emirates and the writ of summons in the suit was served upon one Mr. Jehangir R. Mody as a partner of the defendant's firm. I am informed that the writ of summons has also been served upon one Abdul R. Bukhatia who, according to the plaintiff, is the other partner of the said firm. The said Mr. Mody has filed his appearance in this suit under protest alleging that the defendant firm is not a partnership firm at all but is in fact a company with liability of its members limited to the extent of their contribution. As the appearance has been filed under protest, the plaintiffs have taken out the present chamber summons for the purposes of having the said protest raised and by consent of the parties chamber summons has been taken up for hearing first.2. Mr. Subramaniam, appearing on behalf of t...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghasiram Phoolchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: [1987]167ITR243(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 we are called upon to answer read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting off the fictitious loss of Rs. 1,47,767 disallowed by the Income-tax Officer against the unexplained cash credits of Rs. 1,57,708 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 73,7708 assessable as income for the assessment year in question under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and derives income from various sources. It owns house properties. It carries on business in 'Bardana'. It also runs passenger buses in the name of 'M/s. Mathuradas Motor Services'. For the assessment year in question, it disclosed a loss of Rs. 1,47,7...
Sunil Jugalkishore Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC165; 1988(36)ELT75(Bom)
1. Petitioner doing business in the name and style of M/s. Sunil Sundeep Combines invokes article 226 of the Constitution to quash orders set out in Exhibits 'P', 'M' and 'L' and seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to sell and/or transfer the goods figuring in the petition vide proviso to Section 59(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The points that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the background of the following :-In the period July to September 1982, petitioner imported stainless steel sheets and circles as per the particulars given in para 3 of the petition. Petitioner filed two bills of entry for warehousing of the consignment as required by Section 59 of the Act. After the bills of entry had undergone the requisite scrutiny, the imported goods were stored at the public warehouse under bonds at Wadala, Bombay. The permitted warehousing was for a period of one year ending with 4.10.1983. On 27.12.1983...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Triveniprasad Jamnaprasad Mishra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR164; (1988)IILLJ163Bom; 1988MhLJ698
ORDER1. The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeotmal in Regular Civil Suit No. 252/81 on 18th June 1983 rejecting the applications Exhibits 24 and 25 filed by the defendant-petitioner Bank of Baroda, has been challenged in this revision.2. The plaintiff-opponent who was an employee of the Bank of Baroda at Yeotmal was informed by letter dated 29th July 1981 that he was to retire from the Bank Service on 31st December 1982. The plaintiff informed the Bank that his date of birth was 12th May 1931 and not 12th May 1921 and according to the Regulations of the Bank, he was normally to retire after attaining the age of 60 years. He also pointed out that his date of birth (12th May 1921) mentioned in the registers of the Bank was not correct. His representation was rejected by the Bank. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted as suit for declaration that his date of birth is 12th May 1931 and as such the letter issued by the Bank on 29th July 1981 was bad in law. A consequ...
Namdeo Son of Nathuji Borkar Vs. Prakash Son of Vithalrao Kondawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR355; 1987MhLJ495
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner, who was a defendant before the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur in Civil Suit No. 590 of 1983, has challenged the decree of eviction passed by the Court on 2-10-1985. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows :The opponent-plaintiff (a landlord) instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant-applicant. It was an admitted position that the plaintiff was a landlord and the defendant was a tenant in respect of these tenements. During the pendency of the suit, there was a compromise arrived at between the contesting parties and according to the terms of the compromise the defendant undertook to vacate the suit tenements by 31st of March, 1986.2. The defendant was admittedly occupying these tenements for non-residential purposes. Under a Notification issued by the State Government in pursuance of section 30 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 the non-residential premises were excluded from the operation of the Rent Contro...
Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport Vs. Homi D. Jahangir and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR565; 1987MhLJ743
G.G. Loney, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in appeal under section 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act' rejecting the claim of the Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport to recover the rent which was ordered to be paid by the Estate Officer.2. Briefly stated facts are that non-applicant No. 1 Homi D. Jahangir was licensee at the Nagpur Airport occupying the premises for running a canteen. He was in possession and occupation of the premises under the management of applicant-Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport upto August 1976. After the non-applicant No. 1 vacated the canteen premises, he was found in arrears of rent. Applicant-Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport therefore, filed an application under section 7, sub-section (2) of the Public Premises Act on 21-5-1981 claiming the recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 25,345.57 fora period from 1-2-1974 to 7-2-1977 and...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Babulal Nathmal Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR10(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Rule has been issued in this application under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made at the instance of the Commissioner. We do not propose to make the rule absolute for the reasons we now state.The questions proposed read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the decision of the AAC holding that the amount of Rs. 15,000 received by the assessee was exempt under s. 47(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,000 received by the assessee for relinquishing his rights in the firm was exempt under s. 47(ii) of the IT Act 1961 ? 3. Whether the amount of Rs. 15,000 received by the assessee for relinquishing his interest in the firm was exempt under s. 47(ii) of the IT Act 1961 ?'2. The assessee was a partner along with only one other. A deed was executed between the assessee and his part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »