Mumbai Nagpur Court May 2015 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.
R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Court has vide its order dated 16.05.1991 in Income-Tax Reference No. 437 of 1975 directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to refer the following two questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.1.71 crores (Rs. One crore Seventy one lacs only) was included in the income of M/s. R.B.S.D. (export firm) for assessment years 1950-51 to 1958-59; and 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.1.71 crores (Rs. One crore Seventy one lacs only) as the income of assessee from under invoicing in respect of export transactions? 2. Accordingly, we have heard Shri De, learned counsel for the applicant Official Liquidator as assessee company is under winding up orders and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent Income Tax department. 3. On 26.03.2015, this Court has passed an order in the matter and after briefly referring to ques...
Vikas Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The matter was looked into by this Court on 12.1.2015 and following order came to be passed: Shri Naresh Kolhe, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri N. Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri N.L. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4 and Shri A.M. Qazi, learned Counsel for respondent no. 6. Only question is If for a vacancy for open category, two candidates have secured equal marks and one of them is belonging to a backward category, how their entitlement to the post can be worked out? Petitioner as also respondent no. 2 Employer are relying upon Government Resolution dated 27.06.2008 for said purpose. We direct the respondent no.1 to file appropriate affidavit explaining the position within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of this order be furnished to learned Counsel for parties to act upon. List the matter for further consideration on 09.02.2015. 2. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed on behalf of respo...
Vimal Haribhau Naik Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its addition ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought redressal of her grievance that she has been treated differentially by denying payment of compensation to her for the loss of her orange trees caused by crop raiding wild animals, namely ran-rohe or blue-bulls. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2010, she had planted 125 samplings of orange trees in her agricultural field bearing survey No.424 situated at mouza Mandvai, taluka Kalmeshwar, district Nagpur. The petitioner had nurtured these trees with great care and those trees had shown a healthy growth by April, 2012. According to the petitioner the orange trees would have blossomed about three years thereafter. The petitioner had invested amount of about Rs.40,000/- for planting and nurturing the trees. During the night interv...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›