Mumbai Court January 1988 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.
Tenth Income-tax Officer Vs. B.C. Deshpande
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD194(Mum.)
1. This is a departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81 and the only ground raised is that the CIT (A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for change in the accounting year relating to taxability of salary received by him and in directing the ITO to delete the salary drawn abroad of Rs. 1,94,433 included by the ITO in the relevant assessment. The facts in this regard are briefly these: The assessment year is 1980-81 and the assessee has income from salary earned abroad. The return of income declaring total income of Rs. 83,240 was filed on 5-12-1980. The ITO passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B after taking note of directions of IAC under Section 144B(4). It is necessary to mention here that although this is an appeal filed by the department, a copy of the directions of the IAC under Section 144B(4) has not been enclosed with the assessment order nor is the gist of the instructions given extracted in the order of assessment of the ITO. H...
Samir Diamonds Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD73(Mum.)
1. In this appeal for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee has challenged disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure incurred on several items. However, at the time of hearing of this appeal, Shri Y.P. Trivedi, the learned counsel for the assessee, expressly stated before us that the assessee wanted to press the ground relating to disallowance in respect of only one item, which has been described as 'interest on packing credit' and that the assessee did not want to press grounds pertaining to disallowance in respect of all the remaining items. Consequently, the only point that survives for decision is whether disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b) of the Act in respect of expenditure by way of interest on packing credit was justified.2. On this question, there was difference of opinion amongst Benches of the Tribunal at Bombay. Consequently, the President constituted this Special Bench under...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Joao Rosario Vaz and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas144(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment since they are directed against two judgments both dated October 1, 1983, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Margao, in applications under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arising out of the same accident.2. The facts that led to the said applications were that the sons of the applicants came to die in an accident that took place on November 12, 1980, at about 5 p.m. at Margao. A truck, bearing No. GDS 4214, driven by respondent No. 2, Mohan Tukaram Mane, dashed against the deceased and caused their deaths.3. The learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accidents was due to the rash and neligent driving of the said respondent, Mane, and, ultimately, awarded a compensation of Rs. 56,000 to the applicant, Jao Rosario Vaz, and the same compensation to the applicant, Jose Joaquim Vaz. He held that the said compen...
Sunanda Chandrakant Vs. Chandrakant Bhaskar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR268; (1988)90BOMLR85
ORDER1. This petition impugns the reversal of an order for maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner in proceedings initiated under S. 125 read with S. 127 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are wife and man respectively, joined in that union at Chalisgaon on 31-5-1978. The marriage has been an unhappy one right from the inception. The petitioner instituted a proceedings under S. 125, Cr.P.C. in the Courts of J.M.F.C. at Chalisgaon, which proceeding was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1979. In this application, it was alleged that the husband though possessed of sufficient means had refused and neglected to maintain the wife who was not in a position to maintain herself. The husband contested the proceeding contending that far from his not wanting the wife to live with him or maintain her it was that lady who had deserted him soon after the marriage and had refused to return back. The learned Magistrate who hea...
inderjit Sohahlal Gulati Vs. Manoharlal Palaram Gulati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR479
H. Suresh, J.1. This notice of motion for receiver and injunction is in a partnership action. However, in view of the fact that defendant No. 2, who is not a partner, has been a added as party-defendant, a question arises as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. Defendant No. 2 happens to be the owner of the land which according to the plaintiffs, had been let out to the firm for the purpose of doing their quarry business. In the plaint there is a prayer for a declaration that this quarry is an asset of the firm and that the defendants should not interfere with plaintiffs right to carry on quarry operations from the said land. Mr. Mody appearing for defendant No. 2 contends that if one has regard for the plaint, this is a suit between the tenants and the landlord relating to recovery of possession of land and that, therefore, the suit falls within the scope of section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Mr. Mody submits that this plaint has to be rejected ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›