Mumbai Court November 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.
Narayan R. Bandekar Vs. Second Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR207(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 88 of 1986 is filed by Narayan R. Bandekar. While Writ Petition No. 89 of 1986 is filed by his wife, Mrs, manda Bandekar, and both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy raised in both the petitions is identical and arises out of the same set of facts. 2. Narayan Bandekar and his wife are permanent residents of Goa and are assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax of several years. Bandekar and his wife had floated several private limited companies like Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited, Gulmarg Investment and Trading Private Limited, Bandekar Speciality Valve Corporation, Super Prints, Vasco, and Rashmi Enterprises, Vasco, Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited and Gulmarg Investment and Trading Private Limited are registered in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the registered offices of these two companies are situated at Srinagar, while it is not in dispute that the entire business carried...
Babu S/O. Nilkanth Yedne Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR320
P.V. Nirgudkar, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 44/1987.2. This judgment would dispose of the two Criminal Appeals viz., Criminal Appeals Nos. 65/1988 and 66/1988.3. In the aforesaid sessions case, appellant Babu was arrayed as accused No 2 and his father Nilkanth was arrayed as accused No. 1. It is alleged against them that they committed offences punishable under sections 302 and 201, both read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, as, in furtherance of their common intention of both the accused, the accused No. 2 Babu committed murder of his mother Bhagirathabai by assaulting her with Warwanta on her head and thereafter both the accused threw away the dead body in a well near Railway Station, Udgir, and to cause evidence of murder to disappear.4. In order to understand the prosecution case in a better manner and to avoid un-necessary repetition it would be useful to ac...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: (1990)(26)LC561Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., (ITD), Kandivali (East) Bombay-400 101 against the order-in-original No. V-68 (18) 99/86/1497 dated 6.2.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Div. VIII, Bombay-II rejecting their refund claim of Rs. 1556.32.2. The appellants were heard by me through S/Shri J.N. Pikle, Manager, Excise and M.V. Joshi, Officer of their company when they reiterated the submissions already made in the appeal petition.3. The appellants have made the following main submissions in their appeal petition: (1) The appellants are the manufacturers of Tractors, Engines and parts in their factory at Kandivali. Besides, they also being Tractor & Engine parts, Tyres, Batteries, etc. on payment of duty as inputs in the manufacture of Tractor and in respect of which they take credit of duty paid, under Rule 57A. (2) During the period from 4.7.1986 to 18.8.1986, they had cleared some of the aforesaid purchased goods on which the credit h...
Pradeep S/O Anandilal Zanzar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR148
H.D. Patel, J.1. This Criminal revision is directed against the order dated 5-9-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati in Misc. Criminal Application No. 539 of 1988, by which Criminal Case No. 112 of 1988 and 113 of 1988 pending on the file of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, are ordered to be transferred to the file of the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati.2. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are accused in Criminal Case No. 112 of 1988, whereas the applicant is an accused in Criminal Case No. 113 of 1988. Both the cases arise out of the same incident. Some evidence was recorded in either of the cases by the 8th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati. Due to transfer of Judges, the Presiding Officer functioning as 8th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati, came to be designated as the 4t...
Ralph Miranda Vs. Anti Corruption Bureau and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR656
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The Applicant is the accused No. 4 in Special Case No. 26 of 1987 on the file of Special Judge, Sessions Judge Court, Bombay in Special Case No. 26 of 1992. He was implicated along with other five accused for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of I.P.C. r/w. 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. At the relevant time, accused No. 1 was City Survey Officer No. 111, Santacruz, Accused No. 2 was the Shirestedar working under said City Survey Officer. Accused No. 3 was maintenance surveyor working under the said City Survey Officer, Accused No. 4 was son of late Lawrence Miranda who was the owner of the property. Accused No. 5 was the builder and Accused No. 6 was the Architect.3. The short facts of the case is that accused No. 4's father late Lawrence Miranda was owner of the property bearing City Survey Nos. 4950/B-2 and 4950/B-3 of Kole Kalyan C.S.T. Road, Kurla. After his death, accused No...
Deepak Ghanshyam Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR574; (1989)1991BOMLR35; 1989MhLJ276
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellant-accused who was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Session Case No. 605 of 1986 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and six months, by his judgment and order dt. November 26, 1987.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :On October 2, 1986, Police Constable Premanand Gopal Kalgutkar (P.W. 1) along with Police Head Constable Thakur and Police Constables Shimpi, Thosar and Karande of the Bazarpeth Police Station, Kalyan was on a patrolling duty. Near Valipeer Naka, they noticed the appellant behaving in a suspicious manner and, therefore, proceeded towards him when he tried to run away but was ultimately apprehended. Immediately thereafter, two panch witnesses, including...
Moosa Hyder and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC133
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard Shri S.M.Gupte, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri C.T.George, the learned Senior Counsel for the Customs Department as also Shri M.R.Suryawanshi, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Perused the relevant papers which are produced by the Investigating Officer who is present in Court.3. The event occurred on October 30, 1988 when the Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit of the Bombay Airport Customs Collectorate intercepted about ten Omani Nationals on their arrival from Mascot by Gulf Air Flight. By that time, they had cleared themselves through Customs in the Green Channel giving 'Nil' declaration. Each of them was individually questioned before the independent witnesses as to whether they were carrying any contraband articles or gold an the answer was in the emphatic negative. However, the said Customs Officers had their own suspicion which proved to be fully justified and the personal search of those persons was effected in the presen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Boehringer-knoll Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR96(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Department is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical expenses reimbursed by the assessee to four of its employees should not be taken into account as 'perquisites' for the purpose of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that in view of this court's decision in the case of CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) , the question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, the question is so answered. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Subnani Construction Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)93; [1989]177ITR219(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. This reference raises the following two questions of law at the instance of the Department. They read thus:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the levy of penal interest on the registered firm as if it were an unregistered firm was an error apparent on the fact of the record and that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the mistake was apparent on the face of the record ?'2. The assessee is registered firm, its return of income for the assessment year 1966-67 was due on or before September 30, 1966. However, it was filed on July 23, 1968. While completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer levied penal interest of Rs. 424...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mansants Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR204(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Revenue is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash payments by the assessee to its employees towards house rent allowance in accordance with the service agreement would fall within the purview of the expression 'perquisite' contained in section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that in view of this court's decision in the case of CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) , which was followed in the case of CIT v. Mercantile Banks Ltd. : [1988]169ITR44(Bom) , the question is required to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.3. The question is accordingly so answered. No order as to costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »