Mumbai Court March 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Godavaribai R. Podar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)152; [1988]169ITR245(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are called upon in this reference under the WT Act to say what is covered by the word 'jewellery'. We claim no expertise on the subject and must take the assistance of judicial decisions on the same point and the dictionary.2. The assessee contended before the WTO that her ornaments were exempt from wealth tax by reason of s. 5(1)(viii) of the WT Act. Her ornaments were made of gold and were not studded with precious or semiprecious stones. The WTO did not accept the assessee's contention. In appeal, the AAC granted to the assessee the exemption she claimed. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT. The Tribunal found that the order of the AAC was correct.3. Arising out of the Tribunal's finding, the following question is referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Explanation 1 to s. 5(1)(viii) could be invoked for the assessment years under appeal, even though the said Explanation came into operation only w.e.f. 1-4-1972, and whether the val...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvatibai K. Tiwari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR219(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. This is a reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made at the instance of the assessee. It raises the following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the assessee cannot be allowed to rely on the valuation report at the time of hearing before the Tribunal and that the valuation of the properties taken at Rs. 8,00,000 for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60 was correct ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1957-58 to 1959-60. The assessee did not file wealth-tax returns for the above three years. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notices to her under section 17. Thereupon, she filed returns and disclosed net wealth for the three years thus :Rs.Immovable Property 8,00,000Less : Business debts 60,000---------Total 7,40,000---------3. The Wealth-tax Officer was constrained to make best judgment assessments because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under section 16. He estimated the assessee's net ...
Tag this Judgment!Amiraj Construction Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR607; 1987MhLJ757
H. Suresh, J.1. I thought that charging of exorbitant remuneration by the Arbitrators was a privilege of the legal fraternity. But I find, now, that this is no longer their monopoly. Such phenomenon has now crept into Government Arbitrations. The petitioners have taken out this petition to supersedes the reference and the arbitrations, on the ground that to charge such unreasonable and exorbitant fees by the Arbitrators is per se misconduct. I am inclined to agree with the petitioners. Fortunately the petitioners have come at an initial stage, as otherwise this arbitration would have been a glaring illustration of becoming counter-productive of any meaningful result, which is wholly contrary to the object of arbitration under the Arbitration Act.2. Before I come to the petition I must set out the history. The petitioners were the contractors for construction of a tunnel of about 35 k.ms. In length of Warns Left Bank Canal in Sangli District. There was an agreement executed by the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Tarachand Davare Vs. Dr. M.V. Suryavanshi, Chairman, Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR242
S.M. Daud, J.1. The short point for determination in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the constitutionality of the criteria evolved by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resulting in the exclusion of the petitioner from being interviewed for selection to the post of a Ward Officer as per the advertisement dated October 14, 1985.2. The question formulated above requires consideration in the following background:--3. Petitioner is in the Security Department of respondent No. 3 since before 1975. He is a B.A. (Hons.) from the Pune University and holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Local Self Government Administration. As from September 16, 1975 the petitioner was working as an Assistant Security Officer. The basic pay-scale attached to this post was Rs. 400/- to Rs. 700/- per month, but petitioner was appointed on a higher salary of Rs. 550/- per month. On December 9, 1982, the petitioner was promoted and appointed to the post of Security Officer which is the topmos...
Tag this Judgment!National Education Society's High School and Junior College Vs. Lulomo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR521
S.M. Daud, J.1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to assail the verdict of the School Tribunal in an appeal before it vide section 10 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (Act).2. As I do not propose to dilate at length on the several points that have been raised by Counsel, the facts to be stated here are restricted to those relevant for a consideration of the points at issue.The petitioner runs a High School-cum-Junior College in Bombay and one of the teachers working there, in a permanent vacancy, was Mrs. Kochar. That lady left the employment of the petitioner in about February 1984, To fill in the vacancy, petitioner issued a letter of appointment to the respondent, which to the extent relevant, reads thus :---'Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of three months from 4-2-1984 to 30-4-1986 in the leave/deputation vacancy. After expiry of the above period, your services shall stand terminated w...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shree Art Printing Press
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC550Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises as under :-The respondents M/s. Shri Art Printing Press, Bombay imported a consignment of synthetic resin which consisted of four different items, namely, (1) Glass Coat Compound, (2) Seafoam White, (3) Permanent Rich Gold, and (4) Vicko Silver. They sought clearance against their licence which was valid for import of items listed in Appendix 5 of the Policy A.M. 80. The respondents contended that the goods imported by them were covered by Serial No. 109 of Appendix 5. The Department however objected to the clearance of one of the items, namely, Glass Coat Compound. According to the Department, the said item was a Polyamide resin covered by Serial No. 405 of Appendix 3 (which appendix contained banned items).2. The Asstt. Collector who held the adjudication ordered confiscation of that item but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 12,000/-.On appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay allowed the appeal. The Government of India in exercise of its ...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs, Air Cargo
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC199
1. M/s. Yogesh Brothers have tiled this appeal to the Tribunal against the order No. S/10-1011/86/ACC(1) dated 27.6.1986 of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay confiscating absolutely a consignment of two cartons containing Laminaria Sea Tangle Tents and Golden Cardboard boxes non sterile imported by air and sought to be cleared under B/E No. 3927 dated 9.4.1986 for the reason that the import of the goods in question was not covered under the OGL in Appendix 6 SI. No. 34(iii) of the Import Policy 1985-88. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported the aforesaid goods by air and sought their clearance under the OGL claiming their release as Intra Uterine Contraceptive device. The Customs authorities held that the goods in question were not intra uterine contraceptive devices falling under OGL in Appendix 6 SI. No. 34(iii) but they were Sea Tangle Tents used for terminating pregnancy. In the show cause notice issued to the importer it was further alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vs. Pralhad and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR219
ORDER1. A common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, disposing of the Criminal Revision Nos. 77 and 76 of 1983 rejecting both of these revisions has been challenged in these applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C.2. Facts giving rise to these special applications may be briefly stated as follows; The complainant Pralhad Namdeo Yekade is a resident of Nandura in Malkapur tahsil of the Buldana district. Vithal Kharat (petitioner in Criminal Application No. 160 of 1986) and Ashok B. Pawar (petitioner in Criminal Application No. 152 of 1986) were serving in the Constabulary attached to the Nandura Police Station in or about the year 1982. On 30th August, 1982 which happened to be a Ganesh Chaturthi day, the policemen attached to the Nandura Police Station were on their usual rounds. They were in their official uniform. In the afternoon at about 6 p.m. the complainant Pralhad was on the Ota of his house. Adjacent to the O...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indopol Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR367(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the perquisites allowed to the foreign technicians would not be covered by section 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby deleting the disallowance made under section 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(v) to extent of Rs. 8,310, Rs. 12,232 and Rs. 17,883 for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively ?'2. The facts are indicated in the question itself.3. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure because it related to perquisites which were in excess of one-fifth of the salaries of the foreign technicians of the assessee-company. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal, in further appeal, pointed out that salaries of foreign technicians were exempt from tax so...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mansinghka Oil Mills Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR158(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be granted with reference to the composite profits or with reference to the proportionate profits on the cotton seed oil alone, being item No. 25 of Schedule VI to the said Act ?'2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a private limited company. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton seed oil, that is, vanaspati oil. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on its profits from the aforesaid business. Observing that the profits on which relief was claimed under section 80-I included profits on the sale of cotton seed oil-cake, cotton seed lint and cotton seed husk, etc., which do not qualify for the relief under that section, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »