Mumbai Court March 1987 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.
Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. A.K. Bandyopadhyay and 2 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
Reported in: 1990(29)LC195(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated February 25, 1981 delivered by Mr. Justice Lentin dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Central Excise between March 9, 1973 and September 21, 1973 confirming the demand for payment of additional excise duty, and confirmation of those orders by the appellate and revisional authorities The facts giving rise to filing of the petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance made by the appellants while challenging the order of the learned single Judge.2. The appellant-Company manufactures and sells Fiat cars and prior to September 4, 1969 the cars were sold at the price of Rs. 12.660/- fixed by the Government by informal price control. On September 4, 1969 the Company issued a price bulletin raising the price of cars to Rs. 14.862/- with effect from September 8, 1969...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd., Goa Vs. Union of India and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR210; 1988(18)ECC310; 1987(30)ELT251(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. Whether export duty is payable on exported goods when they cross the territorial limits of India, or whether such duty is payable on the date of the filing of the Shipping Bill, or the date on which the Customs Authorities grant entry outwards, is the short and simple question that falls for our determination in this Writ Petition.2. Petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and doing, inter alia, the business of exporting iron ore from Goa. On 8th March, 1985, petitioners presented to the Marmagoa Customs, the Shipping Bill No. 33, in respect of 1 lakh tonnes of iron ore export to be exported by them through 'M. V. Pioneer maru' Petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards duty of Customs as well as a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards cess. The Customs Authorities granted entry outwards to the said ship on 11th March, 1985 and on the same day, an Order directing clearance and loading of iron ore for exportation through the said ship was ma...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)241; [1987]168ITR731(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the period of lease and the provisions as to the renewal thereof, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not acquire any capital asset or advantage or benefit of an enduring nature by incurring an expenditure on lease in respect of which deductions were claimed by the assessee, and whether the Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee acquired interest under the lease in the premises and this leasehold interest of the assessee therein was an asset of a capital nature and/or benefit and/or advantage of an enduring nature, not liable for deduction ?'2. The assessee, a banking company, had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 39,590 on obtaining lease premises and claimed deduction. Mr. Dhanuka learned counsel for the Department, fa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-vi, Bombay Vs. Polyolefins Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR538(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is an application made by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961. Rule has been issued only in regard to the first proposed question. It reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,29,258 incurred by the assessee in replacing petrol engines with diesel engines fitted in jeeps is of a revenue nature in computing its business income for the assessment year 1977-7 ?'The facts are indicated in the question itself.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found, in view of the fact that the assessee had merely replaced petrol engines with diesel engines which the assessee considered advisable to do in view of the steep rise in petrol prices as compared to diesel prices, that the expenditure thereon was of revenue nature.3. The Revenue relied before us upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Noroth Oil Mill Co. Ltd. : [1983]140ITR173(Ker) ....
Dharamabai (Smt.) Wife of Shripat Mun Vs. Shripat Son of Mahadeo Mun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR199
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner, who was an applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 56 of 1982, has failed this criminal application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of dismissal of her claim for maintenance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha on 17-7-1986 in Criminal Revision Application No. 52 of 1984.2. The petitioner, who is an old lady of about 67, came before the trial Court with her application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that she is the wife of the respondent, their marriage having been celebrated about 40-45 years back. It was her contention that she was residing with the respondent after the marriage and during the wedlock she gave birth to one female child Ujwala. They were leading their married life happily. However, about 10 to 15 years prior to the date of filing this...
Yashpal Mahindrapal Sonik Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR387
G.D. Kamat, J.1. In sessions Case No. 10 of 1986, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years. Being aggrieved by this conviction, he has approached this Court in appeal challenging the same.2. The charge against the appellant is that on 24th February, 1986, at 8.45 hours at Chapora when the police party checked one house the appellant was found in possession of 3.300 kgs. of charas worth Rs. 16,500/- without any valid document and that is how he was tried for being in possession of the narcotic drugs under section 20(b) of the Act.3. In support of the prosecution case three witnesses have been examined, P.W. 1 Shaikh Usman who is about 20 years of age is admittedly a homeguard and is att...
Radhakisan Parashar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR332
Couto, J.1. The appellant, a native of Rajasthan, has been tried and ultimately convicted of an offence punishable under S. 20(b)(ii) read with S. 2(iii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by judgment dt. 30th October, 1986. He was, thereafter sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment for 2 years.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13th March, 1986, the Excise Inspector Manual Jose Afonso conducted a raid for narcotic and psychotropic substance at Azrem Beach of Vagotor and on such occasion, he found the appellant in unauthorised possession of 40 gms. of charas.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. His case being that he is doing business of selling 'chillums' and, therefore, he had come Goa from Rajasthan for the purpose of selling the said 'chillums'. He denied the case of the prosecution that he was found in possession of any charas.4....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-iii, Bombay Vs. Mercantile Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)79; [1988]169ITR44(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are concerned, in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, with the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The three questions referred read thus :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that cash reimbursement of medical expenses was a perquisite within the meaning of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 196 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that reimbursement of tax paid by the employees does not come within the purview of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 196 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deductions under sections 80L and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before setting off the business losses for the year in consideration against the gross total incom ?'2. The first two questions can be considere...
R.V. BhasIn Vs. the State and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR342; 1987MhLJ478
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner challenges two concurrent orders of the Courts below passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 114/N/82 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Bombay dated 22-1-1983 and the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 50/83 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Shri Rege Dt. 8th October 1984.2. The facts in brief so far as they are relevant in the present proceedings may be stated as follows :The petitioner was the accused in the complaint case instituted by the second respondent for an offence under S. 342 I.P.C. The gravamen of the allegations in the said complaint was that the complainant had gone to the office of the petitioner accused to serve him a copy of the Civil Court's injunction order. The accused after the respondent had entered his cabin directed his security guard to lock up the only door of the said cabin from outside and thus wrongfully confined the second respondent in such a manner as to prevent...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Godrej Soaps Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR537(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the Revenue and raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to have deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, worked out at the rate of 6% on the capital employed without regard to the period for which the industrial undertaking had worke ?'2. The assessee and its advocate did not appear when the matter was called out yesterday. They have not appeared even today. They would appear to have relied upon Mr. Jetly, learned counsel for the Revenue, to fairly point out the position in law. Their reliance has not been misplaced.3. The Madras High Court has held in CIT v. Simpson and Co. : [1980]122ITR283(Mad) , that the words 'per annum' used in section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, corresponding to section 80J referred to in the question, cannot be unders...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »