Mumbai Court April 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Muncherji and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)338; [1987]167ITR671(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The Tribunal has referred as many as five questions of law in this case at the instance of the Revenue. However, the main question of law revolves round the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal against the order of assessment and the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a firm. It was not hitherto assessed to income-tax and was, therefore, required to file the estimate of the advance tax payable for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 during the financial years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67. However, it did not do so. It had also to file its returns of income for the above three years on or before June 30, 1965, June 30, 1966, and June 30, 1967, respectively. However, the returns of income were filed on April 29, 1966, November 16, 1967, and December 27, 1967. The assessments for all the three years were completed on September 30, 1968. But the Income-tax Officer did not charge interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. V.M. Jog Constructions (Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR48
H. Suresh, J.1. This petition is to set aside an award made by an arbitrator. The relevant facts are as follows :---The petitioners, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, gave a contract to the respondents after inviting tenders. The contract was for the purpose of execution of civil works in respect of Love Grove Waste Water Treatment Facility under Bombay II Sewerage Project. They were also to carry out various construction works and in the process they were also to do certain excavation work for the purpose of construction. The contract, amongst other things, provides for removal of excavated stock and it says that if they are to be removed beyond 300 meters from the site and upto a distance of 3 k.ms., they will be entitled to a certain lead charge. It is the case of the respondents that the 'site' would be the various construction works which were to be carried out in the said Love Grove compound and, therefore, on the basis of the said contention they claimed that the distance...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Basu, Sales Manager Vs. Mahesh Kumar S/O Bajranglal Agarwal anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR413
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A private complaint was lodged by the complainant Maheshkumar against four accused including J.K. Basu, the present petitioner, before me. The first accused was M/s. Bharat Engineering Company at Aurangabad, which was represented by the three accused Inpindar Singh, R.K. Bhandari and R.S. Sharma. The offences alleged against them were punishable under section 417 and 420 read with section 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed on 15-11-86 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal. It appears that the verification of the complainant was recorded on the same day by the learned Magistrate and by the order on 20th November, 1986, the learned Magistrate issued a process under sections 417 and 420 read with sections 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four accused. The petitioner J.K. Basu, who is described as a Sales Manager (Export) of the Hindustan Motors Limited, Calcutta has challenged that order before this Court. The in...
Tag this Judgment!Surekhabai W/O Amrut Asare Vs. Motilal S/O Prabhudayal Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR295; 1987MhLJ610
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the landlord against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the order of the learned Appellate Deputy Collector, Nagpur who has granted permission to her to give quite notice to the respondent-tenant under clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'Rent Control Order').2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant/landlord purchased the suit house for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/- by sale-deed dated 15-6-1978. On 14-9-1978 she filed an application under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the respondent/tenant who was occupying the whole of the suit house. The respondent/tenant resisted the said application by filing his written statement. The parties led evidence before the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence on record dismissed the application filed by...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Vijay Enterprises Vs. Ashish Enterprises and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR631; 1988MhLJ481
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This writ petition in directed against the order, dated 17th September, 1984, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati, fixed the application before him for evidence of parties, without deciding the petitioner's preliminary objections that respondent No. 1's application could not be heard unless the application, which had been dismissed for default, was restored.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and had entered into an agreement on 22nd October, 1982, for selling three survey numbers, admeasuring 11 acres and 13 gunthas situated at Rahatgaon, to the respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,81,200/-. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before respondent No. 2, the Sub Divisional Officer, under section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BTAL Act') for permission to purchase the land. The petitioner filed a written statement resisting the application. On...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: II(1990)ACC270
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the Managing Director of the respondent Company is not an 'employee' within the meaning of the definition of the said expression given in Section 2(9) of the Employees 'State Insurance Act 1943 (for short the ESI Act).Briefly the facts are that by orders dated 23-5-1974 and 1-7-1974, the appellant Corporation made the provisions of the ESI Act applicable to the respondent Company on the ground that it had engaged 20 employees in its Company and, as such, by virtue of Sub-Section (4) of Section 1 of the ESI Act, the provisions of the said Act were applicable to the said Company. The respondent Company made an application under Sections 75 and 76 of the ESI Act before the Employee's Insurance Court, Nagpur, for decision on the dispute whether the respondent Company is a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Peejay Maya Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC87Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order No.S/10-50/83-D, dated 13.4.1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appellants M/s. Peejay Maya Exports placed an order for 3 containers of brass scrap of NARI specification N.F.80. The foreign suppliers supplied the intended goods in three different consignments. The appellants cleared two of the consignments. When the appellants sought to clear the third consignment, the customs objected for the clearance that the goods contained in 55 drums are not the goods declared in the Bill of Entry and they cannot be cleared under OGL. The appellants pleaded before the customs authorities that there had been a wrong supply and the goods indented by them were not the goods supplied. In support of their contention, they have produced a copy of the indent, invoice, packing specification as well as Bill of Lading. The description given in these documents tallied with the description given in the Bill of Entry b...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Jewellery Works and Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC107
1. Mangalore Jewellery Works, Bombay filed a Revision Application dated 23.12.1981 to the Government of India under old Section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 82K ibid and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal is against the order No. 89/1981 issued under F.No. 111/6/81-GC.I, dated 29.10.1981 of the Gold Control Administrator whereunder he rejected the first appeal of M/s. Mangalore Jewellery Works as time-barred under Section 80(1) of the Act. This fact is not disputed by the appellants. When this appeal was called out for hearing on 20.3.1987 the learned advocate Shri Madhu M. Patel on behalf of the appellants argued that the Tribunal should go into the merits of the appeal and not on the question of the correctness of the Gold Control Administrator's order rejecting the first appeal as time-barred. Since the advocate had not come prepared to argue the proposition as canvassed by him that the T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.H. Kusumgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR370(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the property gifted to Shri Jain Dharmik Shikshan Society was exempt under s. 5(1)(v) of the GT Act ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the asst. yr. 1968-69. The assessee, an individual, made a gift of immovable property to a public charitable trust called the Shri Jain Dharmik Shikshan Society, Bombay, on 1-4-1966. He claimed that it could not be subjected to gift tax. The GTO rejected his claim. The AAC in appeal, confirmed the order of the GTO. The Tribunal, in further appeal, upset the order.3. The object of the charitable trust is, inter alia, the imparting of education and the encouragement and promotion of the study and practice of the Shwetamber Jain Murtipujak religion amongst students of the ashrams, boarding houses, gurukulas, vidyalayas, pathshalas and shravi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-v, Bombay Vs. K.H. Kusumgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)70; [1988]169ITR370(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. It raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the property gifted to Shri Jain Dharmik Shikshan Society was exempt under section 5(1)(v) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee, an individual, made a gift of immovable property to a public charitable trust called the Shri Jain Dharmik Shikshan Society, Bombay, on April 1, 1966. He claimed that it could not be subjected to gift-tax. The Gift-tax Officer rejected his claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, confirmed the order of the Gift-tax Officer. The Tribunal, in further appeal, upset the order.3. The object of the charitable trust is, inter alia, the imparting of education and the encouragement and promotion of the study and practice of the Shwetamber Jain Murtipuja religion amongst st...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »