Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)11ITD472(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the ITO against the order of the AAC dated 2-10-1982 in the 1977-78 income-tax assessment proceedings.2. For the assessment year 1977-78, previous year ending 31-3-1977, on 5-10-1977, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 29,870. Among the income so declared, the assessee returned income of Rs. 1,047 from the self-occupied flat being Flat No. 71, Chitrakut, Altamount Road, Bombay. The net income from house property at Rs. 1,047 was returned thus:Municipal rateable value as per certificate 4,285Add: One-ninth 476 4,761Less: Municipal taxes at the rate of Rs. 176.58 per month 2,119Less: Half for self-occupation of Rs. 1,800, 2,642 whichever is less--under Section 23(1) 1,321Less: (1) One-sixth repairs 220 1,321 (2) Insurance--Rs. 4.53 per month 54 274Net chargeable income from house property: 1,047 Dealing with this issue, it is seen that the ITO accepted the municipal rateable value at Rs. 4,840 (as disclosed by the assessment order) even tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR338; 2006(3)BomCR557
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its functionaries have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 14, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 and quashed and set aside the orders dated 24th March, 2004 (Exhibits `O1', `O2' and `P') and the demands of payment pursuant to the bills (Exhibits `R', `S1' to `S8') so far as the present appellants sought to reassess the rateable value with effect from 1st April, 2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first appellant- the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 'the Corporation' and the present respondent No.1- Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Limited 'the petitioner'. 3. The petitioner claims to hold the property being plot of land with building `Dalamal Tower', situate at Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal A Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR189; 2009(6)MhLj906
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 2001 filed by respondent landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the petitioner tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent landlord.2. In Regular Civil Appeal No. 190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR29; (2002)4BOMLR41; 2002(4)MhLj568
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decreeof the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Regular CivilAppeal No.64/1990 dated 31.1.1996, reversing the Judgmentand Decree passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, atPanaji in Civil Suit No.35/80/C dated 28.9.1990, whereinthe suit for eviction has been found to be notmaintainable, in view of the extension of Rent ControlLegislation to the area in which the suit building issituated.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The factual background of the case can bestated quite shortly.3. The original plaintiff, late Shri DattatrayaWalaulikar vide Agreement dated 2.8.1971 had allowed oneVasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the housesituated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthlypayment of Rs.25/- for a period of 36 months on the leaveand licence basis.4. The original licensee, said Shri VasudeoDhempe left for heavenly abode on 2.7.1972. The presentdefendants continued to use and occupy the said house ashis heirs and successors. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. This is plaintiff's appeal from Judgment, Order and Decree dated 28/11/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji Goa (trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 46/96/B. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said suit. 3. The Plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 41,610.24/- per month w.e.f. 1/11/1995 until the defendant hands over effective possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and along with interest on the said amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows: The plaintiff is owner of part of the second floor of the premises at Diamond Chambers, 18th June Road, Panaji-Goa admeasuring about 2600 square feet (suit premises). The construction of the suit premises was completed in the first week of November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom130; 2008(2)ALLMR550; 2008(3)BomCR154; 2008(3)MhLj195
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the appellants. Nobody has appeared for respondents on 10th, 14th & 15th January & thereafter today.2. By this Second Appeal, the widowed daughter-in-law has challenged the judgment and decree concurrently passed against her, ordering her eviction from house property having Corporation House No. 176/0+1 situated in old Ward No. 44, Jagnath Road, Teen Nal Chowk, Nagpur. Regular Civil Suit No. 1325 of 1978 filed for eviction from that house by her father-in-law and his brother came to be decreed on 30.8.1984 after holding that the present appellant had taken forcible possession of part of it and licence to occupy its remaining part was duly terminated. The widow then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 584 of 1984 and said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.1.1989 by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The appellate Court also found that though widow was claiming right to occupy that house by contending that her father-in-la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magistrates asking them to dispose of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom456; 2002(6)BomCR409; (2002)3BOMLR892; 2002(3)MhLj666
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of an order passed by the Small Causes Court on 11th February, 2002 in three Revision Applications. The three Revision Applications sought to impugn an order passed by the Small Causes Court, dismissing three interim notices which were taken out on behalf of the Applicant herein, raising objections to the execution of the decree for eviction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is that a suit for eviction came to be filed in the year 1990 by the landlord and eviction was sought on the ground, inter alia, of a change of user and of subletting, these being statutory grounds which were available under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit for eviction was decreed on 21st December, 1996 both on the ground of change of user and of subletting. The appeal which was filed by the Applicant was dismissed on 25th February, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!