Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1984
Reported in : (1985)11ITD472(Mum.)
..... standard rent has been fixed by the controller under the delhi rent control act, 1958, the annual value must be limited to the measure of standard rent determinable under that act or it can be determined on the basis of the higher rent actually received by the landlord from the tenant. . . . it was, thus, held that the prohibition in section 4 and sub-section (1) of section 5 against recovery by the landlord of any amount in excess of the standard rent was operative only after the standard rent was fixed by the controller under section 9 and, until the standard rent was so fixed, it was lawful for the landlord to receive the contractual rent from the tenant and if the period of limitation prescribed for making an application for fixation of the standard rent had expired, the tenant could not, thereafter, get the standard rent fixed by the controller ..... rent' relating to the house in question in new delhi was fixed in 1941 under the new delhi house rent control order, 1939, and that fixation continued to be valid notwithstanding the repeal of the control order, even after the delhi rent control act 59 of 1958 came into force, the fair rent determined the standard rent which still affected the assessment of rates of the house in question for fixation of rates for assessment of house tax under th e punjab municipal act, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord was deriving at the time of fixation a much higher rent than the standard rent ..... month, i.e., rs. 12,000 per year, it would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-13-1984
Reported in : AIR1985Bom134; 1985(1)BomCR406; (1983)86BOMLR678; 1985MhLJ80
ORDER1. This original defendants' revision is directed against the order quantifying the liability of mesne profits. The Appeal Court quantified the same in the sum of Rs.400/- per month from the date of the decree till the date of the delivery of possession. The quantification from the date of the suit till the date of the order was at the rate of Rs.60.75 per month.2. In this Court Mr. Gumaste submitted that this quantification at the rate of Rs.400/- from the date of the order till the date of the delivery of possession is contrary to law. In the submission of learned Counsel the mesne profits could not be charged more than the standard rent or the statutory rent fixed by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in the case of Hindustan Steel (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Smt. Usha Rani Gupta : AIR1969Delhi59 , and the decision of Privy Council in the case of Gurudas Kundu Choudhary v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-02-1984
Reported in : (1984)86BOMLR450; 1986(9)ECC188; 1985(20)ELT70(Bom)
Couto, J.1. The petitioners challenge, in this Writ Petition, the Orders dates 25th October, 1980 and 19th August, 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, as well as the show cause notices issued by the same Board on 25th February, 1981 and 20th March, 1981.2. The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 and the second petitioner is shareholder of the same Company. The first petitioner manufacturers strips of Surgical Dressings containing a pad medicated with Nitrofurozone (0.125%) called Handyplast. On 12th October, 1962, a Tariff Advice was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that products similar to Handyplast were not classed under Item 14E. Petitioners started the manufacture of Handyplast and on account of the said Advice, no duty was levied on the said product. However, on 16th March, 1974, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Assistant Collector of Excise and Customs, whereby he proposed to classi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-1984
Reported in : 1985MhLJ224
1. This set of civil appeals by the original defendant in the suit was initially admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether a lease created for commercial purposes under the provisions of the Decree Mo. 43,525 dated 7th March, 1961 continues to be heritable under the provisions of the Goa, Daman, and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. However, at the hearing of the appeal, another question was also allowed in respect as to whether the mesne profits can be fixed in excess of the rent which would be payable for the rented premises under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.2. The respondents had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on the grounds that they are the owners of a house situated at Panaji and that, by an Agreement dated 10th July, 1946, their predecessors in title had given the said house on lease to one Domingos Pedro Xavier Fernandes, late husband of appellant 1 and father of appellant 2. The rented premises consis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-10-1984
Reported in : (1985)LC147Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are two appeals by Shri Meghraj Gordhandas Gehi No. 255/83 (hereinafter referred to as 1st appellant) and Mani Parambath Aboobaekar (hereinafter referred to as 2nd appellant) filed to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against order No.S/14-6-28/81 Pint dated 16th August 1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Bombay.2. The facts of the case arc that as a result of surveillance by the Customs Intelligence Officers, the 1st and 2nd appellant who were bound for Hong Kong by Air India Flight No. A.I. 308 were intercepted at the Bombay Airport. The 1st appellant had been cleared through the Customs and was holding a black brief case while the second had yet to report to the Customs counter for baggage examination and was holding a black rexine handbag. Cursory examination disclosed concealment of foreign exchange in the brief case held by the 1st appellant Panchas were called and both of them denied having any Indian currency, foreign currency...
Tag this Judgment!