Mumbai Court February 1997 Judgments
M.N. Karani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD119(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XXII, Mumbai and pertains to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The solitary issue neatly identified by Shri B. K. Khare, learned counsel for the assessee, relates to the question whether the amount of Rs. 11,00,000 being the compensation paid to the assessee by M/s.Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HCGL") against RESTRICTIVE COVENANT is exigible to tax 3. The assessee did B.Com. from Bombay University in 1949. He worked for 3 years in Stock Exchange out of which he spent two years in London. He had family establishment in Bombay stock Exchange with Mr.Batlivala & Karani. Two years spent in London was with Mr. Robinson & Glynn, Stock Brokers, London and M/s. Vickers Dacosta & Co. and Middland Bank Ltd., Securities Department, Head-Office, London in 1953, Amalgamated Chemicals & Dyestuffs Co. Ltd., Bombay. This was a subsidiary of J. R. Geigy SA Basl...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Olga T. Desouza Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR102; [1997]228ITR409(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the relief under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77. During the previous year relevant to the said assessment year, the assessee sold a house property situated at 10, Pali Road, Bandra, in which the assessee had 3/7ths share. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of her share of capital gains arising from the sale of the said property under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on the ground that she had purchased a new residential accommodation within the period specified therein. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this claim of the assessee as according to h...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT219Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant is a Custom House Agent whose CHA licence was suspended vide order dated 12-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The appeal has been filed by them on 22-10-1996 after it was found that no show cause notice was received by them after completion of the inquires undertaken by the Custom House. The appeal came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 3-1-1997 when a direction was given by the Bench that the matter should be adjourned to 10th February, 1997 as per request of both the parties. When the appeal came up for hearing today Shri H.R. Shetty Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that their CHA licence remains suspended for more than a year with the resort that their livelihood is severely affected inflicting great [suffering] on the employees of the firm. He pointed out that the reason for suspension as could be gathered from the suspension order was that the Proprietor did not respond in time whenever required to attend the Central Intelligence U...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Jaffery Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Bom)291
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of capital gain received by him on the sale of the residential flat ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1975-76. The material facts of the case giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is an individual. He was occupying Flat No. 9-G of Malbar Apartment at Nepeansea Road, Bombay, since May, 1968, on leave and licence basis. He was paying compensation for that at the rate of Rs. 525 per month. He purchased the said flat on July 16, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 36,375 and was in occupation of the same as its owner since then. He sold the above flat on August 11, 1974, f...
Tag this Judgment!Hameed Jaffery Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR589; 1998(4)BomCR404; [1997]227ITR724(Bom); 1998(1)MhLj294
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made at the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of capital gain received by him on the sale of the residential flat.'2. This reference pertains to assessment year 1975-76. The material facts of the case giving rise to was reference are as follows:The assessee is an individual. He was occupying flat No. 9-G of Malbar Apartment at Nepeansea Road, Bombay, since May 1968 on leave and licence basis. He was paying compensation for that at the rate of Rs. 525/ per month. He purchased the said flat on 16th July 1973 for a sum of Rs. 36,375 and was in occupation of the same as its owner since then. He sold the above flat on 11th August, 1974 for a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Dattaraya Chapahlkar Vs. Shri Govind Yeshwant Borkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR52
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a tenant of two rooms on the second floor of the residential premises, challenges the Order dated 30.10.1982 passed by the 10th Extra Assistant Judge, and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1980 filed by the petitioner. By that order the Appellate Court confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune dated 14.11.1979 in Civil Suit No. 2163 of 1974 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents who are landlords and owners of the suit premises issued a notice dated 3.9.1973 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner on three grounds. First ground was that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1.6.1961 to 30.9.73. Second ground was that the petitioner-tenant has secured suitable alternate accomm...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Vasudeo Koshe and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR188
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. All the aforesaid First Appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings in respect of lands situated at Asudgaon. Notification for Acquisition dated 3.2.1970 was published on 4.2.1970. The aforesaid lands were acquired for the development of public purpose at New Bombay. After completing all the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 12.8.1983 and thereafter, on 20.9.1983, possession of the said lands were taken. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. mtr. and also consequential reliefs. Against the aforesaid order of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants in all the aforesaid First Appeals, preferred the Land Acquisition References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondents in First Appeal No. 1432 of 1988 and the appellants in First Appeal No. 1036 of 1989 preferred L.A.R. No. 57 of 1984. The respondents in First Appeal No. 1433 of 1988 and the appellants in First Appeal No. 1037 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Arcee Nettings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT44Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the Appeal come up for hearing, Shri Uday Joshi the ld. Counsel for the Respondents made a submission that their own appeal before the Supreme Court against an earlier Tribunal decision on this identical issue regarding the correct classification of the product in question namely Round Mesh Mosquito Nettings is due to be heard very shortly as per the intimation received by him from the Advocate on record. He therefore, made a request that the appeal may be adjourned to a latter stage so that the Bench would have the opportunity of taking into account the Supreme Court decision.2. The plea for adjournment was strongly opposed to Shri V.K. Puri the ld. SDR. He pointed out that considerable amount is involved and the Commissioner has given a specific instruction that the matter may be argued on merits for decision by the Tribunal. The Department's request for early hearing of the appeal had been made keeping in mind the stakes involved as well as the strong case on merits in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Maruti Patil and ors. Vs. Ganesh Hari Dharmadhikari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR705a
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Regular Civil Suit No. 590/1972 was filed by the original respondent in the petition - Ganesh Hari Dharmadhikari of whom the present respondents are the legal representatives - before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, claiming therein that the petitioners are tenants of the building owned by him, standing on C.T.S. No. 835. It was claimed that Maruti, since deceased, of whom the defendants are the heirs, was the tenant in relation to two rooms and a courtyard. It was contended by the landlord in the civil suit that the tenant had constructed a permanent shed in the back-yard without written consent of the landlord. The landlord also claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent. Therefore, notice dated 25.11.1970 was issued terminating the tenancy of the tenant. Thus, a decree of eviction was sought against the tenant on the ground of erecting a permanent structure without written consent of the landlord and also on the ground of default.2. The Tria...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shamrao Dinanath Bhatte Vs. Smt. Sulochana Divakar Parkar and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR411
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 346 of 1980, dated 13.8.1981. The appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court at Bombay, dated 2.4.1980, is R.A.D. Suit No. 5472/ 1975.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present petitioner, Shamrao, is monthly tenant in respect of Shop No. 13 in a building situate at the Corner of Gokhale Road and N.C. Kelkar Road, Dadar, bearing Plot No. 177, T.P.S. No. IV, Mahim Division, Bombay. Respondent No. 1, Sulochana, filed R.A.D. Suit No. 5472/1975 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay, claiming that the shop premises were given to her on licence by the present petitioner and therefore she is a protected licensee of the premises, being in the premises on 1.2.1973. She also claimed a mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. 2 to 11, who are respondent Nos. 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »