Mumbai Court November 1997 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.
Sushila Devi Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mumbai)338
ORDERVimal Gandhi Vice President :These two appeals by the assessees for the asst. yr. 1985-86 involve common issue. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that in 1959 J.M. Gupta purchased land at Santacruz, Mumbai. It was claimed to have been purchased with funds belonging to the HUF, headed by J.M. Gupta as Karta and comprising of Karta, his wife Snit. Sushila Devi Gupta and two sons, Anil Kumar Gupta & Arun Gupta. In the year 1962 three flats on ground floor and some portion on the first floor was constructed with the funds of the HUR On 1st of March, 1976 through a partial partition of the above HUF the above property was partitioned and specified shares were given to Snit. Sushila Devi and two sons of the Karta. It is claimed that as on the date of partition, Anil Kumar Gupta was married and had a son. Arun Gupta was unmarried.3. The aforesaid partial p...
Susma Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT65Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri M.H. Patil, the ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR for the department, 2. The issue in this case relates to the classification of the bleached sheeting fabrics which is heavily sized as between Heading 52.06 of CETA which is claimed by the appellants and Heading 59.01 which has been adopted by the department. The Deptt. sought to classify the goods under Heading 59.01 on the ground that it is impregnated coated having stiffness imparted to it. Sample of the product was drawn for testing and according to the test report the sample was in the form of open weave cotton fabrics. It is stiff and heavily sized with starch, gum and inorganic fillers. On treatment with hot water, it practically loses its stiffness. The test report further indicated that the fabric does not appear to be impregnated/coated as the interstices or open spaces between the yarns are not closed. We find that on the issue of classification of the identically structured...
Mrs. Mohinidevi T. Chudiwala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD337(Mum.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal relating to asst. yr. 1988-89 arising out of the order of the CIT(A), Cent. I. Mumbai, dt. 21st March, 1996, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and confirming the addition of Rs. 70,000 made by the AO while making the assessment against the assessee by his assessment order dt. 16th February, 1995, passed under s. 143(3)/250. The case of the assessee in short is as follows : 2. The assessee is an individual. The previous year relevant to asst.yr. 1988-89 ended by 22nd October, 1987. The assessee filed her return of income on 15th March, 1990, declaring a total income of Rs. 14,110.Originally, the assessment was completed under s. 143(3) by means of the assessment order dt. 19th February, 1991, under which an addition of Rs. 70,000 was made on account of unproved loans. It is the case of the assessee that she had received loans amounting to Rs. 70,000 from 7 parties. The names of the creditors, the dates of contracting loans and the amounts borro...
Sahebrao Shripati Godse Vs. Chandar Bhau Chavan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR545; 1998(2)BomCR612
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner who is the original Opponent No. 1 in the Tenancy Case No. 27 of 1967, is the petitioner herein. The Tenancy Case No. 27 of 1967 of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Khatau, Dist. Satara arises out of an application filed under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') by the Respondent No. 1 herein. In that application the Respondent No. 1 approached the Mamlatdar for declaration under section 70(b) of Tenancy Act that he is a protected tenant. In fact 1st respondent was applied under section 70(b) for the land comprising of Survey No. 55 and Survey No. 78 but ultimately dispute centres reserved only of Survey No. 78. The petitioner's claim is that the respondent No. 1 is not the tenant at all. On the other hand the respondent No. 1 contested that he is in possession of 1/4 of land comprising of Survey No, 78. It is the case of the 1st respondent that this extract of Survey N...
Sujata Suryavanshi and Another Vs. University of Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR202; 1998(4)BomCR109; (1998)1BOMLR790; 1998(3)MhLj564
1. This petition is filed by six students against the University of Mumbai and others seeking certain reliefs. Prayer (a) is to the effect that the provisions of Ordinance No. 237-A be declared as unconstitutional, ultra vires and in violation offundamental rights and void ab initio. Ordinance No. 237-A is incorrectly mentioned everywhere in the petition as Ordinance No. 273-A. We have gone through the Ordinance. The Ordinance puts, certain restrictions on the right of revaluation of answer books. It states that a candidate who appears in all the subjects of a University examination at one and the same sitting and in not more than two heads of passing of prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in the said heads of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in each of those heads or minimum 'C' Grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. There is further provi...
Mrs. Venetia E. Dias Vs. Jude Francis Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC316
R.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant challenges order dated 25th April, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa declining to give regular custody of the children to her. By the said order, the appellant was permitted to take children with her from the custody of the respondent on Sundays or any other Holidays and during the Winter and Summer Vacation of die School in which the children are studying. The total period of custody of the children by the appellant was restricted to one and half months in a year. In this appeal, the appellant challenges only the first part of the order whereby the regular custody of the children was declined. In respect of the second part of the order by which the appellant was permitted custody for a total period of one and half months in a year. Appeal No 30/97 had been filed by the present respondent which was withdrawn.2. Today, the respondent is present with the children, but the appellant is absent. Learned Advocate for the appellant states t...
Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD230(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dated 10-8-1990 for the assessment year 1984-85. The ground taken is as follows : "The Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 154 by disallowing a sum of Rs. 4,49,066 being provision for doubtful debts in computing the business loss without considering the fact that the issue regarding allowability of provisions for doubtful debts is debatable and cannot be brought under rectification proceedings under section 154. The Assessing Officer has also erred in ignoring the fact that the accounting entry for provision for doubtful debts is sufficient compliance of law and has ignored our representatives M/s. M. P. Chitale & Co.'s letter dated 5-3-1988 and thereby erred in reducing the loss by Rs. 4,49,066," 2. The assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 was originally completed on 27-3-1987 wherein the AO allowed a deduction for an amount described as a provision for doubtful debt of Rs. 4,49,066.Su...
Chintaman Sahadevrao Bagde Vs. Baliram Rangnath Bansode and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR618; 1998(2)BomCR823
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard parties. 2. The revision petitioner, a third party applicant, whose application to implead him as a defendant, was rejected by the learned trial Judge, has moved this Court by this Civil Revision Application. Baliram Rangnath Bansode filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of open land out of S. No. 14 situated at Aurangabad, impleading one Gopinath Bhikaji Chavan as a defendant. The defendant came out with a written statement that he is not concerned with the suit property and the real owner in possession of the suit property is one Shri Chintaman Bagde and the suit having been filed without impleading Shri Bagde with some ulterior motive, should be dismissed. It was also contended that some construction was made by the said Bagde in the disputed property. After this written statement was filed, an application came to be moved by Chintaman Sahadevrao Bagde to implead him as party defendant to the suit.3. In this application, applicant conte...
Madhukar B. Bhanushali Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR576; 1998(3)BomCR14; 1998(1)MhLj558
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner approach this Court with a prayer inter-alia for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15th May, 1984 once whereby it has been intimated to the petitioner that the Order No. TNC-Act-XIV-SR-56 dated 23rd October, 1978 passed in the proceedings No. TNC-Act-XIV-SR-56 by the Additional Tahsildar, Jawhar was reviewed. However, the order of review has not been produced by the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Gangal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by the respondent against the petitioner was not served. Therefore, it could not be produced. What is submitted is that by Exh. 'B', the application made by the 4th respondent under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 was rejected and this was reviewed by the impugned communication after lapse of about 5 years.2. The petitioner's case is that he is a purchaser of the property comprising S. No. 85 (1 to 5) admeasuring 21 Acr...
Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT455Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture reclaimed rubber falling under Chapter 40 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They sell their goods on the basis of purchase orders placed on them by their customers who are manufacturers of various types of tyres for trucks, cars, two wheelers, cycles. The appellants considered each purchase order as a contract for sale of a particular grade of tyres and on this understanding of theirs they filed price list for the reclaimed rubber in the Proforma Part II which is prescribed for sales against contracts in terms of Section 4(1)(a) proviso (i) of Central Excise Act, 1944, that the sales is to different classes of buyers against contracts, show cause notices were issued to the appellants for the period 1-3-1990 to 14-5-1990 demanding duty of Rs. 18,378.59 which was confirmed in an order dated 8-7-1991 by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise who held that the prices declared by the appellants in Proforma Part II were for individual buy...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »