Mumbai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.A. Heptulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR413(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The questions of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Revenue ar :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale effected by the assessee's father of the property in question was a gift to the extent of 2/3rds thereof and, as such, the assessee was competent to adopt the fair market value of the gifted portion of the property which represents the 'cost of acquisition' referable to such gifted portion as on January 1, 1954 ?'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no case for enhancement of 'capital gains' as proposed by he Income-tax Officer ?'2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee in an individual and the proceedings relate to the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee sold a plot of land admeasuring 3,125 sq. yards and a structure thereon during the previous year for a sum of Rs. 3,90,625. He com...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.V. Sabunani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR56(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to this court in this reference at the instance of the Revenue is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is competent ?'2. It is common ground that the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year was completed under section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 83.778. The assessee had challenged the addition of Rs. 48,000 included therein and also the interest charged under section 139(1). The addition of Rs. 48,000 was deleted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but he refused to interfere as regards levy of interest under section 139(1) on the ground that no appeal lay against the levy of interest under section 139(1). The Tribunal, on further appeal by the assessee, accepted the assessee's contention and held that the appeal was competent against the levy of interest under section 139(1).3. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Major S.S. Sukhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR84(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Counsel are agreed that, the only question that is referred at the instances of the Revenue in this reference is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty : [1981]128ITR294(SC) . The question reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 50,000 received by the assessee for transferring the goodwill of the business were chargeable to tax under the head 'Capital gains'?'2. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sahu Rubbers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR29(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The question that arises in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company was entitled to set off the unabsorbed depreciation allowance amounting to Rs. 51,547 of the years 1950-51 and 1951-52 against its income under other heads and sources of the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, having regard to the judgment of this court in CIT v. Estate and Finance Ltd. : [1978]111ITR119(Bom) .3. The question is accordingly so answered.4. No order as to costs....
Fazalbhoy Investment Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR523(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the assessee and raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's lands at Chembur acquired by the government were 'not agricultural lands' within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the relevant previous years having ended on September 30, 1966, 1967 and 1968, respectively. The assessee purchased the land in question, at chembur, in July 1951. It was acquired by the government during the course of the three previous years. The Income-tax Officer, assessed long-terms capital gains in the sums of Rs. 2,18,933, Rs. 4,218 and Rs. 34,428, respectively, for the three years. He rejected the contention of the assessee that the said land was agricultural land and that any gain made thereon would not, therefore, attract the provisio...
Damodar Haribaksha Agrawal Vs. Ramratidevi and ors., Etc. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom257; 1989(2)BomCR26; 1989MhLJ425
Dhabe, J.1. These appeals by letters patent can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly the facts are that the appellant landlord filed applications in these cases against the respondents/tenants under several clauses of clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). Originally the Rent Controller rejected the applications filed by the landlord. However, in appeal the Resident Deputy Collector, allowed the appeals and granted permission to the landlord under Cl. 13(3) (v) (iv) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred writ petitions in this Court. The question raised in the writ petitions was whether the learned appellate authority, who decided the appeals, had jurisdiction to decide the same. The said question was answered in favour of the tenants by the learned single Judge of this Court in these petitions by his judgment which is now reported in Madhavrao v. D...
Corporation of the City of Nagpur Vs. Nemi Kumar Prabhudas Raibagkar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: 1991ACJ191
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These are the three first appeals arising out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short the 'Claims Tribunal') which can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. Reference, however, to the parties in this judgment is as in the First Appeal No. 37 of 1980. Briefly the facts are that the deceased Nutankumar was the son of the respondent No. 1. The deceased Nutankumar was studying in the Industrial Training Institute, Nagpur, during the relevant time. On the eventful day, i.e., 17.8.1977 at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning the deceased Nutankumar along with 4 or 5 other boys was going to the Industrial Training Institute on their bicycles by Wardha Road, Nagpur. When they reached the square where Kripalani Road meets the Wardha Road, one of the cyclists by name Suresh Kanhere, who according to the claimants was ahead of them, took a turn towards the right and had crossed the square to go to the Institute. The second boy, who t...
Collector of Customs Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC444Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad bearing No. VIII/48-85/ Cus (T)/83 dated 20.6.83. The said appeal had been filed by the department in pursuance of the Order No. 111R dated 01.11.1983 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board under Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The relief claimed in the appeal is for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Collector and to determine the correct legal position of issue raised and to declare that the import of lard is not correct under OGL Appendix 10(1) and the same is covered under entry 41 of Appendix 8 of Import and Export Policy, 1982-83.3. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present appeal can be briefly stated as below.4. The respondents imported a consignment of 3474.416 M.T. of lard and filed two Bills of Entry for clearance of the aforesaid consignment.The respondents claimed clear...
K.R. Steel Union Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT336Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay bearing No. SG. Misc-118/82A-S/10-209/82 LSIIB dated 26-11-1982.2. The facts of the case for consideration of the appeal can be briefly stated as below: The appellants imported four consignments declared to contain Electrolytic Tinning Line Machinery Spares and sought their clearance under the provisions of OGL Appendix 10, Item 4 of AM 82. The c.i.f. value of the four consignments was totally Rs. 34,48,668/-. On the basis of certain information that the goods may be a complete plant as against spares and that the goods have been supplied after two years since placement of order, the matter was investigated by the Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch of the Custom House. On examination of the consignments, they were found to be complete units of Electrolytic Tinning Line Machinery and they were found to be old and used and not even reconditioned. In the statement of the Director of the...
M/S. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ramanand Devrao Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: I(1990)ACC439; 1990ACJ130; AIR1990Bom4; 1989(2)BomCR49
ORDERKurdukar, J.1. These two first appeals are directed against an award dt. July 17, 1986 passed by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay. Both these appeals arise out of an application No. 2 of 1984 filed by Shri R. D. Hattangadi for compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The applicant is Shri R. D. Hattangadi who is hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant'. On 4-11-1980 the claimant filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and later on amended the claim petition claiming Rs. 35,00,000/-. Respondent 1 to the application was the owner of the motor lorry No. MYG 7218. Respondent 2, M/s. Pest Control, was the owner of the Ambassador car bearing registration No. MEQ 4583. Respondent 3, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer of the motor lorry whereas Respondent 4, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer of the Ambassador car owned by the 2nd responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »