Mumbai Court October 1988 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kores India Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Bom)34; [1989]176ITR500(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'D', has referred to us the following two questions for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the cash payments made by the assessee-company to its employees in the form of car allowance, ex gratia payments, insurance premium, house rent allowance, etc., are not covered by the expression 'benefit or amenity or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not' occurring in section 40(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby directing recomputation of the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer under that section ?(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for computing the disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following emoluments paid to the employees have to be taken i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mutual Steel Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR292(Bom)
Desai, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue by the Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'E', reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the development reserve created by the assessee before the completion of the assessment fully complied with the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Shri Jetley has fairly stated that the answer to be given is, as far as this High Court is concerned, concluded by its decision in CIT v. Janardhan Zarapkar : [1982]138ITR482(Bom) . Which decision was based on a consideration of the observations in the Supreme Court's case. In accordance with that decision in Janardhan's case : [1982]138ITR482(Bom) , we answer the question in the affirmative CBIA and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their respective CBIB costs of the reference....
B. Shantilal and Co. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom226; 1988(4)BomCR526
ORDER1. It is a human instinct to resist any change. The resistance is considerably strong when it comes to change of place of residence or business. This petition which is filed in a representative capacity sets up one such resistance on the part of the Iron and Steel merchants who are carrying on business in the City of Bombay. This trade is mainly located in (I) Carnac Bunder, (2) Kharwa Galli, (3) Dharukhana, (4) Kurla and Vidyavihar etc. by the impugned notification the said business of Iron and Steel is sought to be shifted out of Bombay and located a Kalamboli in New Bombay. By that impugned notification which is dated 22nd September, 1986 Exhibit-A, to the petition, the respondent 2, the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority made a declaration under S.3 (I) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1983 inter alia declaring the whole of Bombay Metropolitan Region as the Market area and Kalamboli as the Market yard. T...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Hilal Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR287
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 286 of 1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shahada, ordering the return of the truck No. MWD 5480 to its owner Jagannath Shankar Badgujar. The owner filed Criminal Application No. 1769 of 1988 for vacating the order of stay passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 286/88 staying the order dated 23rd June, 1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shahada, in S.T.C.C No. 559 of 1988 and for confirming the order of the return of the truck to him passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Shahada.2. The truck in question was seized by the Forest Officer while it was being wed for carrying away gravel stone-forest produce from the forest without any licence or permission. The truck was being driven by the driver Rajendra Hilal Patil who was prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 26(g) of the Indian Forest Act and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/-. No...
Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao Vs. V.M. Salgaokar and Broth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR23
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This revision application is filed by the original defendants against the Order passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, dated 23rd March, 1988, rejecting their application for amendment or modification of issues. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the notification issued by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu in exercise of powers conferred under Chapter IV of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963, dated 25th October, 1983, is void and illegal. The plaintiffs have also claimed a relief for recovery of the amount. The defendants filed their written statement. Thereafter it seems that the learned Judge framed the issues on 15th April, 1987. Since it was realised that the issues were not framed in accordance with law and particularly as per the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 1, the defendants filed an application for amendment and modification of the issues which came to be rejected by the aforesaid order.2. Shri Presswala, the learned Counsel appe...
Vishanjee Dungarmal Futnani and Others Vs. Mrs. Krishna Mohanlal Futna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas585(Bom)
Tated, J.1. This writ petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, and article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing Criminal Case No. 48/W of 1984, filed by respondent No. 1-complainant in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay.2. The case of the petitioners-accused is that petitioner No. 1- accused No. 1 is a businessman carrying on business at Calcutta and that he ordinarily resides at Calcutta. Petitioner No. 2- accused No. 2 is his wife. Petitioners Nos. 3, 5 and 7-accused Nos. 3, 5 and 7 are sons and petitioners Nos. 4, 6 and 8-accused Nos. 4, 6 and 8 are daughters-in-law of petitioners No. 1 and 2. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are residing at Calcutta. Petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 are residing at Hyderabad and petitioners Nos. 7 and 8 are residing at Bangalore. Petitioner No. 1 and Mohanlal, the husband of respondent No. 1-complainant, are sons of one Dungarmal Bachamal Futnani. Dungarmal Futnani owned conside...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. A.S. Narendrakumari Basaheba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Bom)56; [1989]176ITR515(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in he circumstances of the case, he Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer merged with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order in its entirety and that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 263 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The relevant previous year was Samvat year 2025. During the financial year 1969-70, an advance tax demand of Rs. 13,950 was raised on the assessee under section 210 of the Income-tax act. In response to the said demand, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 12,440. The self-assessment tax on the basis of the income return furnished by the assessee came to Rs. 10,007. The assessee was, however, assessed on a total income of Rs. 64,107 and Rs. 29,968 was the tax determin...
Dr. Vijay Krishnarao Kedare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom148; [1989(58)FLR608]; 1989MhLJ36
ORDER1. This petition is to obtain petitioner's appointment as a Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology after quashing that made in favour of Respondent 3.2. Grant Medical College and the J. J. Group of Hospitals are State run institutions. Rules have been framed to regulate the appointment of Registrars attached to Government Medical Colleges in the State. These rules provide for reservation in favour of the weaker sections categories into 4 Sections viz. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Vimukta Jati and Momadic Tribes and other Backward Classes. The balance goes to the open category. The sections aforementioned have a minimum and maximum in terms of percentages. For the Scs and the VJNTs the percentages range from 13 to 16and 4 to 5, respectively. For the currect term commencing from 1 July, 1988 the total number of vacancies in the posts of Registrar came to 47. In terms of seats the percentages for the above two categories come to 6:8 and 2:2 respectively. In keeping with the r...
Kewalramani Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: [1991]189ITR90(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J. 1. Although the answer to be given to the questionseems to be concluded as far as this court is concerned by the decision inMetal Rolling Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]142ITR170(Bom) , it is pointedout by learned counsel for the applicant that the Bombay decision citeswith approval and follows CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd: : [1980]121ITR747(All) . It has been shown to us by reference to 1982 135 ITR 110, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (S. L. P. (Civil) 10498of 1980), that the said Allahabad decision is under appeal to the SupremeCourt. 2. To protect the applicant we make the rule absolute.3. Costs of the application to be costs in the cause....
Shanti Builders and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR1
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'). In an enquiry under the Act, order was passed against the petitioners under section 8 thereof. Appeal therefrom failed. The petitioners' application under section 21 of the filed on 20th March, 1979 was promptly dismissed on 30th March, 1979. Their application under section 20 of the Act was also dismissed. The validity of these orders is questioned in this petition.2. Mr. Gursahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners is right in submitting that the impugned orders under sections 20 and 21 of the Act are unsustainable because no hearing and no opportunity was given to the petitioners in that behalf. Even otherwise, no reasons have been disclosed in support of the said orders save and except the cryptic ground of public interest. The High Court has in several earlier writ petitions consistently set aside such and similar orders passed either unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »