Mumbai Court June 1987 Judgments
Rajabally Hirji Meghani Vs. S.N. Sahane and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR379; (1988)67CTR(Bom)128; [1988]170ITR614(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The appellant was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1971-72 by an assessment order dated March 27, 1974. On September 30, 1974, the appellant was given notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the proposed reopening of his assessment for the said assessment year. On November 29, 1975, the appellant wrote to his Income-tax Officer protesting against the proposed reopening. He asked the Income-tax Officer to furnish him with the grounds for the same. On that day, he also filed a return as required by the notice under section 148, but under protest.2. Nothing transpired until January 17, 1980, when the Income-tax Officer wrote to the appellant on the subject of the reopening of his assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the said assessment year. He stated that after the assessment for that year had been made, the Income-tax Department came to know that loans shown by the appellant were not genuine; that one J. K. Thakka...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Ejalji Cooper and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom127
ORDER1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. There is a plot at 'C Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, known as 'Bhangwadi Estate' admeasuring approximately 6330 sq. yards. In the revenue records, the plot had the number of C. S. 938 of Bhuleshwar Division. Since about 1960, the property card was showing the name of M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as the owners of the plot. It appears the buildings situated in this estate have been in existence for the last 80/90 years or more. Apart from various other chawls and other buildings, there also existed a theatre known as 'Princess Theatre'. The theatre has now been demolished. The petitioners in the first petition arc the residents of an adjoining plot bearing No. 585, almost situated behind the place where the theatre was in existence. The petitioners in the other petition are the residents of some of the chawls situated in this Bhangwadi Estate.3. It appears that M/s. Sandeep and Co., who are respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC497; 1988(17)LC17(Bombay); 1988(34)ELT30(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 3rd February, 1979 and 16th November, 1979 respectively passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune and the Member of the Board of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi in. terms of which 17 air-conditioners under seizure under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules) were confiscated, with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 13,000/-. The petitioners were also required to pay excise duty of Rs. 1,95,682/- under Rule 9(2) of the Rules. In addition penalty amounting Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q(1).2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The main business of the petitioners is manufacture of compressors for which purpose they have a factory at Karad in Satara District in the State of Maharashtra. The compressors are items installed in air-conditioners, water coolers, refrigerators and allied ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Faruq Haji Abdul Gaffar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT403Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Reference Application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by the appellant in appeal CD(T)(BOM)387/80. It arises out of a common order bearing No. 910-911/86 WRB, dated 25.7.1986 passed in appeal CD(T)(BOM)387/80 and 388/80.2. By this application the applicant requires the Tribunal to refer the following questions, which according to the applicant, are questions of law and that they arise out of the order dated 25.7.1986 : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principles of natural justice has been complied with, especially when the appellant had all along been contending that the statement of the driver has not been made available to him (2) In any event, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant knew or had reason to believe the contents of the package in question (3) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal attached due weightage to th...
Tag this Judgment!Sixth Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Lakhamsey Napoo Smarak
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD10(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee is a trust known as Shri Lakhamsey Napoo Smarak Sadharan Fund. The assessee is assessed through its trustees. The assessee-trust is charitable in nature. The trust was created by deed dated 24-3-1943. The settlor had settled a sum of Rs. 12,000 on trust together with immovable property known as Napoo Hall. This Napoo Hall was described as trust premises in clause 3(a) of the trust deed. In the clause, it was mentioned that the income, interest and profits of the trust premises and of the sum of Rs. 12,000 being1 a portion of the trust funds would be used for the maintenance and upkeep of the trust premises including the said Lakhamsey Napoo Hall and for ordinary and extraordinary repairs to the same and for improvement and betterment of the said trust premises. There is a proviso to clause 3(a) in which it is mentioned as to what would happen if the income of the said Hall was insufficient for the ab...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT73(Bom)
1. A short question which is involved in this matter is this; namely, whether the Government could exempt MMTC, a Government Corporation, from paying customs, duty in respect of import of certain quantity of aluminium ingots while at the same time such an exemption be denied to the petitioners. The petitioner state that this is discrimination and, amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. I may mention that in the petition the petitioners has also asked for a declaration that the said exemption notification dated 18th of April 1980 should be continued to remain in force upto 30th of September 1980. This is on the footing that the petitioners had already placed orders for import of aluminium goods on the strength of such exemption notification and by the time the goods were imported the exemption had elapsed. The petitioners have asked for such a declaration mainly on the ground of promissory estoppel. Mr. Ganesh has rightly stated that it is not possible for hi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Sharma Vs. Sind Hyderabad National Collegiate Board an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR307; 1987MhLJ782
G.H. Guttal, J.1. These are references made by the College Tribunal constituted under section 42-A of the Bombay University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raising an identical issue viz., whether section 42-B(1) of the Act is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India The Tribunal is constituted for the adjudication of disputes or differences between the employees and the management of the affiliated colleges or recognised institutions (other than those managed and maintained by the State Government or the University) connected with, or arising out of, dismissal or removal of an employee, or the termination of his services otherwise or reduction in his rank.2. Almost an identical provisions is found in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the School Act) where under section 8(1), a School Tribunal is constituted for dealing with the same matters. Hence, we have permitted the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Aluminium Private Limited and Mohanbhai Ishwarbhai Patel Vs. Uni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC634(Bombay)
Suresh, J.1. A short question which is involved in this matter is this; namely, whether the Government could exempt MMTC, a government Corporation, from paying customs duty in respect of import of certain quantity of aluminium ingots while at the same time such an exemption be denied the petitioners. The petitioner state that this is discrimination and, amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. I may mention that in the petition the petitioners had also asked for a declaration that the said exemption notification dated 18th of April, 1980 should be continued to remain in force upto 30th of September, 198o! This is on the footing that the petitioners had already placed orders for import of aluminium goods on the strength of such exemption notification and by the time the goods were imported the exemption had elapsed. The petitioners have asked for such a declaration mainly on the ground of promissory estoppel. Mr. Ganesh has rightly stated that it is not possibl...
Tag this Judgment!indubai (Mrs.) W/O Mahadeorao Mohajan and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR128; 1987MhLJ974
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short the Ceiling Act).The only question raised in this letters patent appeal is whether the petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to a share under section 3(3)(i) of the Ceiling Act on a notional partition as contemplated by the said sub-section. The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that unless there is a partition by metes and bounds between the father and the son, the mother is not entitled to get any share in the joint family property. In support of the proposition the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Privy Counsel in the case of Pratapul Agarwalla v. Dhanbati Bibi and of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Modi Nathubhai Motilal v. Chhotubhai, : AIR1962Guj68 .2. It may be seen that although the above proposition may be a correct statement of th...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Murlidhar Premchand and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD397(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one relating to the assessment year 1977-78 and another relating to the assessment year 1978-79, filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a registered firm. Among the claims before the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings was the claim of weighted deduction under Section 35B on expenses relating to the activities enumerated in the various Sub-clauses of clause {b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee's business was not that of an exporter and, therefore, the provisions of Section 35B cannot be invoked by the assessee to claim weighted deduction on expenses, which, according to it, were on activities enumerated in the various Sub-clauses of Clause (...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »