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.
Pankaj Vidhyasagar Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR178; (1989)91BOMLR9; 1989MhLJ30
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The Applicant Pankaj Vidhyasagar Gupta filed an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. It was alleged in the said application that he has a reasonable apprehension that he may be arrested by the Mulund Police in C.R. No. 369 of 1988, which is registered on a complaint filed by his father-in-law Shri Manoharlal Kishorilal Gupta for offences punishable under section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 326 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In the application the applicant has contended that a civil dispute is pending between him and his father-in-law in the High Court itself and he apprehends that with a mala fide intention his father-in-law might falsely involve him in this Criminal Case.2. Initially, the matter came to be placed before the Single Judge of this Court Shri Tipnis, J. Smt. Keluskar, the learned Public Prosecutor contended before the Single Judge that since the offence involved is ...
Ramji Narayan Ghuge Vs. Ratan Waghu Bhujbal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR686
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question for consideration is whether, upon dismissal of a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property instituted by the plaintiff in possession, a decree for possession against the plaintiff could be passed, in the absence of a counter claim seeking such relief.2. On April 21, 1979, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, sons of the owner, Waghu, who are the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to this appeal, agreed to sell to the plaintiff two agricultural lands Gat Nos. 119 and 120 situated at village Manori in District Nasik admeasuring, respectively, 27 gunthas and 6 acres and 13 gunthas, for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. They had received a total amount of Rs. 12,299/- as earnest money. The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who are the daughters of Kalu the brother of Waghu and who have a share in the property, were not parties to this agreement of sale. At the trial, the defendant No. 1, who was a party to the agreement of sale did not r...
Ashok Krishna Nagvenkar and Others Vs. Hari Vishnoo Lotlekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas321(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. These two revision applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the parties to the dispute in these two applications are the same and the dispute also is interrelated. The facts to be set out hereinafter would clearly demonsrate the grievance of the applicants in the two petitions.2. Hari Vishnu Lotlekar and Bhaskar M. Nagvenkar instituted Suit No. 46/69/B in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao for dissolution and accounts against three defendants, Xembu Purshotam Nagvenkar, Krishna Pandurong Nagvenkar and Sadashiv Nagvenkar. The plaintiffs claimed that the company was constituted by deed dated May 1, 1950, under the provisions of the law of Sociedades por Quotas of 1901 under the name and style of 'Nagvenkar and Company'. This company, which is equivalent to a partnership firm under the Partnership Act or private limited company under the Companies Act, consisted of the plaintiffs and the defendants as members. The defendants toge...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asian Electronics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR60(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question that rises in this reference reads thus:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to allowance of depreciation an development rebate on Rs. 50,000, the price paid for the acquisition of technical know-how documentations ?'2. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, has fairly drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. CIT : [1986]157ITR86(SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Sudarshan Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. : [1986]159ITR629(Bom) , having regard to which the question must 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. Caltex (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)98; [1990]186ITR608(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question raised in this reference at the instance of the Department is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesee is entitled to depreciation on roads, walks, driveways and approach roads inside the factory premises on the footing that they constitute 'plant' ?'2. On the face of it the question is covered against the assessee by this court's judgment in CIT v. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 585. However, it is pointed out by Mr. Munim, learned counsel for the assessee, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had allowed depreciation to his client on roads, walks, driveways and approach roads inside the factory premises on the footing that they constituted building and not plant. However, the Department went in appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal on its own gave further relief to the assessee by holding that the roads, walks, driveways, etc., constituted plant and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to a higher rate of d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR10(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The two questions that are referred at the instance of the Revenue read thus :-'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it is not incumbent on the assessee to create the entire development rebate reserve in the previous year in which the machinery is installed in view of insufficient profits and in consequently holding that the assessee-company is entitled to the deduction of development rebate allowance on the basis of the development rebate reserve created for the assessment year 1968-69 to 1970-71 ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing the assessee-company's claim of development rebate of Rs. 39,06,037 in respect of plant costing Rs. 1,94,04,733 installed during the previous year ended December 31, 1966 notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had not created the statu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohanlal Jalan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR478(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 and for evaluating under rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the value of rent-free quarters, the term 'salary due to the assessee' would refer to the aggregate salary due from more than one employer even if the rent-free accommodation is provided by only one of the employers ?'2. The assessee, an individual, inter alia, earns remuneration from two concerns, Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. and Bharat Barrel and Drum . The former has also provided him free residence. The question is regarding computation of the perquisite value of the free residence in his hands. The Income-tax Officer computed it at Rs. 16,200. This was done by deducting Rs. 3,600 being exempt under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act from Rs. 19,800 being the rent paid by the employer for the flat. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the rent paid by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rashtriya Metal Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR44(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question that arises in this reference reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 7,62,000 representing 'Gratuity reserve' and 'Provision for taxation' respectively, are includible in the capital computation of the assessee under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, for the assessment year 1963-64 ?'2. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) it is only the excess of provision for taxation or gratuity reserve over actual liability which requires to be treated as reserves for the purpose of capital computation. However, the relevant material required for the purpose of capital computation. However, the relevant material required for the purpose is not available on record. In the circumstances, we have to direct the Tribunal to determine the excess of the provisions over liabilities in respect of both these items in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR41(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue raises the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to interest on the amount found refundable to the assessee as a result of the order in revision passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on February 10, 1971 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the answer to the question is governed by the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. : [1984]146ITR452(Bom) , and that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.3. The question is so answered. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SaifuddIn M. Moonim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR321(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question raised in this reference application at the instance of the Revenue read thus :'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the provisions of section 26 of the Act, the assessee was entitled to deduction of the interest paid by him on a loan raising by him for contributing his share of the price and cost of construction of the property in computing his income from the house property ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of this court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Abdulabhai M. Moonim : [1981]132ITR642(Bom) .3. Accordingly, the question is so answered.4. No order as to costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »