Mumbai Court December 1987 Judgments
Darshan Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD335(Mum.)
1. These five appeals by the assessee are being disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee-company was incorporated in June 1973. The accounting year ends on 30th June. The following were some of the objects : to invest money on interest on personal security of leasehold and free-hold land, shares, securities, stock, merchandise, and other property...provided that the company shall not carry on the business of banking to invest in and make advances on any free or lease land or lands, buildings...workshops...and to purchase, acquire...let and dispose of the same from time to time as expedient.3. For assessment year 1974-75, the assessee-company returned nil income under all heads and was assessed on nil income. For the next year also (assessment year 1975-76), the assessment was at nil income.4. For assessment year 1976-77 the return showed loss of Rs. 270 under the head "Business" (interest Rs. 49 less expenses Rs. 320) but was assessed at Rs. 20,000 under Section 144 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Devidayal (Sales) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD397(Mum.)
1. The above appeal is filed by the assessee. In order to understand the nature of the issues raised in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to certain facts in their chronological order.2. For the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee, which is a private limited company, disclosed income from interest on securities, loss from business amounting to Rs. 10,68,106 and income from other sources in the form of dividend income of Rs. 3,32,418, from which an amount of Rs. 83,104 was deducted at source as tax. In the statement of income filed with the return of income, a claim was made that the whole of dividend income of Rs. 4,15,522 received from M/s. Devidayal Tube Industries Ltd., being a new industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 84 (as it then was), was exempt from tax under Section 85.The ITO passed the assessment order on 20-3-1970. In the computation of income, he included dividend income of Rs. 4,15,523 along with an item of income from other sources amounting to Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Choksi and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai
The Gold Control Officers of Preventive Collectorate, Baroda seized 362.800 gms. of gold valued at Rs. 45,350/- which included primary gold weighing 272.150 gms. from the licensed premises of respondent G.A. Choksi a licensed gold dealer. On the date of seizure, Shri G.H. Choksi did not make any statement in respect of the seized gold on the pretext that he was mentally confused. No other statement appears to have been recorded on that date. The statement of G.H. Choksi was recorded on 11-7-1980. Among other things, he stated that the seized gold belonged to one Shri G.C. Patel, the second respondent. It was originally received by a certified goldsmith one Shri G.G. Soni who had brought the gold to his premises for testing purpose during his absence but his brother G.A. Choksi was present. The statement of J.A. Choksi was recorded on 29.8.1980. Among other things, he confirmed the receipt of gold from G.G. Soni. Shri G.G. Soni's statement was also recorded on 22.8.1980. He corroborate...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Gundesha Jewellers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC590Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Gola (Control) Officers of Headquarters (Preventive) Branch Pune on 1-11-77 visited the gold dealer's licensed premises. They verified the physical stock with reference to the statutory records. They found excess stock of gold and gold ornaments weighing 933.500 gms. of old gold ornaments. They also found excess stock of new gold ornaments weighing 571.850 gms. and therefore they seized gold ornaments - equivalent to the weight of the excess noticed.2. It appears assay Panchanama was carried out on 7-1-78. The seizure was on 1-11-77. During that Panchanama the total weight of seized gold found to be 1405 gms. instead of 1505.05 gms. said to be seized in the panchanama dated 1-11-77. It appears thereafter the entire stock of the gold was weighed and it was found that 105.05 gms. was excess.3. During the course of investigation the statement of G.G. Parmar, Partner of the gold dealer was recorded. He inter alia stated that in his absence some gold ornaments must have been receive...
Tag this Judgment!Thurthi Kadar Abdul Hameed Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal was not listed for hearing today. The stay application however listed. We heard the appeal on merits.2. During the hearing, Shri Vanoo submitted that the whole order of the Collector is illegal. He has neither given show cause notice nor heard the appellant and thus there had been a denial of the principles of the natural justice. On this ground alone the Addl. Collector's order is liable to be set aside. An order which was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a void order and therefore, the applicant cannot be called upon to deposit any amount.3. We heard Shri Mandal who supported the order of the Addl. Collector.We ourselves perused the order. In the whole of his order the Addl.Collector nowhere states that there has been a service of the show cause notice on the appellant. Further, the Addl. Collector observed that in the absence of true address of the passenger it would not be worthwhile to post the case for personal hearing, therefore I am pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mec Corporation and Another Vs. V.G. Mahishkar, Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR440; (1988)90BOMLR28; [1988]70STC25(Bom)
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is aimed against an order purporting to fall under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('BST Act' or 'the Act').2. Petitioner No. 1 is a firm registered under the Partnership Act whereof Petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The firm is registered under the BST Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the Samvat Years 2033 and 2034, corresponding to 24th October, 1976 to 11th November, 1977 and 12th November, 1977 to 31st October, 1978 respectively, the partnership was assessed under section 33 of the BST Act. This assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer, respondent No. 2. The said officer did not pass any order of forfeiture/penalty under section 37 read with section 46 of the BST Act. On a scrutiny the first respondent felt that during the Samvat years in question the petitioners had collected Rs. 2,24,405.00 and Rs. 93,522.29 as sales tax. This collection was contrary to law and was therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Vasant Karkhanis Vs. Shobha Ravindra Karkhanis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR272
V.V. Vaze, J. 1. One Shobha Deshpande was married to Ravindra Karkhanis, a divorcee on 17-3-1980 at Bombay under the Hindu Customary Rites. The marriage was also registered and the couple started living together as husband and wife at Laxman Zulla, Ranade Road, Bombay-400028. A daughter Ruta was born out of the wedlock on 20-11-1980 but as difference arose the couple started living separately from 16th October, 1980. They applied in January 1985 to the Bombay City Civil Court under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for passing a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage. As a period of six months is provided for under sub-section (2) of section 13-B for a motion to be made the learned Judge of the City Civil Court had made the petition filed on 2-1-1985 returnable on 19-8-1985. Before that date the petitioner No. 1 took out a Notice of Motion praying that maintenance may be granted for her daughter Ruta and explained that even though she had stated in the petition under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Govind Sawant Desai and ors. Vs. Nandkumar Anandrao Patkar (Dr.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR338
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Civil Application No. 6685 of 1987 discloses the grossest abuse of the process of the Court by the applicants and, as will be presently pointed out, I was very much inclined to pass an instant order to hear them in this behalf and found appropriate in law giving these contemners in the custody of the Sheriff after sentencing them to Civil Jail on account of this kind of abuse of the process of the Court. It is only because both the learned Counsel, Mr. Walavalkar & Mr. Hatangadi have prayed that this drastic step may not be taken that I am restraining myself from passing such order although I am not sure that this restraint is called for in this gross case.2. A simple statement of facts is quite enough to expose the most obvious device (of taking the Court for a joy-ride) employed by these Applicants in Civil-Application No. 6685 of 1987:---(a) One Dr. Patkar obtained a decree against one Raghunathrao Tawde (Applicant No. 5 in Civil Application No. 6381 of 1987). M...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Maya Vs. Ishwarlal Chunilal Mehta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR83
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th February, 1987, passed by the learned Addl, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay rejecting the application of the petitioner-complainant for holding the trial in camera as provided under section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner filed a complaint on 21st March, 1985 before the learned Magistrate against respondent No. 1 for offences under sections 493, 496 and 506 part 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Broadly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she was serving with respondent No. 1 accused as a Personal Secretary since about January 1978. Ultimately, they developed intimacy and the accused is alleged to have induced trust and confidence not only in the complainant but also in her family members. The accused, in fact, secured an accommodation for the complainant and her family members at Mahim sometime in ...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Kantilal Patel Vs. Home Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR459; 1989(20)ECC120; 1989(24)LC257(Bombay); 1989(39)ELT204(Bom)
Agarwal, J.1. A short question that has been put for our consideration is whether a writ can be issued quashing an order of detention when that order has not been served on the detenu and the detenu is not under detention. A few facts given rise to the above question may be sated.2. On the 15th of February, 1981 five unaccompanied packages had been unloaded at the Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport, Bombay. Two out of the said packages had been booked from London by the Petitioner and there by one Johal Singh Manjit Singh and the consignee of the aforesaid five packages was one Mrs. Fulla Prabhakar. On the 26th February, 1981 the petitioner, the aforesaid Johal Manjit Singh and one Dhillon arrived at Bombay from London and stayed in the Hotel Holiday Inn. The Petitioner as also the said Johal Manjit Singh had made an attempt to change the name of the consignee from Mrs. Fulla Prabhakar to their own name but the same was not fruitful. On certain information being received, the Customs O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »