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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vora Exclusive Tools Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR533(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Department reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company during the pre-production period as aforesaid or any part thereof by way of interest on loans (Rs. 36,826), commitment charges (Rs. 3,356) and legal and professional charges (Rs. 13,375) : (a) formed part of the actual cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of granting depreciation allowance and development rebate; and (b) formed part of the capital employed in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80J relief ?'2. The question is in two parts. The first part pertains to the question whether expenditure incurred by the assessee-company during the preproduction period such as interest on loans, commitment charges and legal and professional charges formed part of the actual cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of granting depreciation allowance an...
State of Maharashtra Vs. V.S. Raghavan, Manager, Lorcom Factory, Chika ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR55; [1989(58)FLR293]; (1989)IILLJ427Bom; 1989MhLJ828
1. This appeal is filed by the State against the respondent-accused who is Manager of Lorcom Factory, Chikalthana, Aurangabad.2. The complaint was filed against the respondent accused for contravention of provision of Section 58(1) of the Factories Act made punishable u/s 92 of the said Act. The learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that the occupier of the factory is not made accused in the present case. The prosecution is launched only against the respondent who is Manager of the factory. As the occupier is not made accused, the learned Trial Judge held that such a prosecution in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act is not proper and hence acquitted the respondent-accused.3. Shri Patil, learned A.P.P. for the State, contended that the provisions of Section 92 are not properly appreciated and the prosecution of Manager alone for contravention of provisions of Section 58 of the Act is possible.4. The provisions of section 92 of the Act relate t...
Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sevak Mahamandal and ors. Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR570; (1989)91BOMLR1
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. These twelve writ petitions have been filed on behalf of Group Secretaries, Secretaries and Peons of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies, etc. raising several questions relating to their recruitment and conditions of service including scales of pay.2. Before we consider the merits of the claim to enhanced scales of pay for the Group Secretaries, Secretaries and Peons employed in the aforesaid Co-operatives Societies, we may briefly set out the history relating to caderisation of these posts. The historical perspective of these matters has been fully set out in the report of Kore Committee appointed by the State Government. When the co-operative movement had taken its root, the concept of a Primary Secretary was that of an honorary active public worker. With the growth of the co-operative movement along with many other things, the said concept of honorary public service had changed. Secretaries and/or employees in the Co-opera...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Buckau Wolf New India Engineering Works ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR464(Bom)
S. P. BHARUCHA J. - The only question that arises for consideration in this reference reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-1 on the interest of Rs. 3,39,960 received on outstanding sale proceeds of machines manufactured by it ?'The issue has been decided by this court in the assessees own case in regard to the earlier years (CIT v. Buckau Wolf New India Engineering Works Ltd. : [1984]150ITR180(Bom) ). Accordingly, counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.The question is so answered.No order as to cost....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shantaben Natwarlal Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR5(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The only question involved in this reference at the instance of the Revenue is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to delete the share of profit of Smt. Shantaben and her two minor sons from the respective partnership firms of N. G. Paranjpe and Co., and Maganlal Pranlal and Sons from the assessment of the assessee-Hindu undivided family for the years under consideration ?'2. Late Shri N. M. Gandhi died on May 22, 1962 leaving behind his widow, Smt. Shantaben, and two minor sons, Shri Girish and Atul, and one daughter, at the time of his death, he was a partner in two firms viz Maganlal Pranlal and Sons and N. G. Paranjpe and Co, in his individual capacity as per the deeds of partnership dated September 17, 1953 and October 8, 1959, respectively. According to the deed of dissolution dated August 3, 1962, in respect of the firm Maganlal Pranlal and Sons, the two minor sons of the de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Bhat Family Research Founda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)88; [1990]185ITR532(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calls for an interpretation of section 11 thereof as it read at the relevant time. The question that is referred reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excess over 25% of the gross income or Rs. 10,000, whichever was higher, was to be invested in Government securities in view of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not the entire amount of accumulation ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessees claimed refund to tax deducted at source. The Income-tax Officer did not dispute that the assessees, as trustees of a charitable trust, were entitled to claim exemption under section 11. He disputed the contention of the assessees that they had made an investment which was sufficient compliance with the requirement of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section...
Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)83; [1989]177ITR111(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The following three questions of law have been raised in this reference at the instance of the assessee:'(1) Whether the applicant's powder manufacturing unit was an industrial undertaking 'formed by... the reconstruction of a business already in existence' within the meaning of section 80J(4) and, therefore. Not entitled to deduction under section 80J(1) ?(2) Whether the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to revise the assessment order for the assessment year 1970-71 in view of the fact that the question regarding the applicability of section 80J was determined in the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 ?(3) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, in any event whether the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, while revising the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71 was competent to enhance that assessment by the amount of Rs. 45,442 which was the deduction granted in the assessment order for the assessment year 1969-70,...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR506(Bom)
Sugla, J. 1. The reference is made at the instance of the assessee and raises the following composite question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for (a) taxation, (b) proposed dividend, (c) bonus in the nature of dividend, and (d) for gratuity could be taken as reserves within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , in so far as the provision for dividend and bonus is concerned, the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.3. In so far as provision for taxation and gratuity is concerned, only that portion of the provision is to be treated as reserve which is in excess of the actual liabilities under each head. However, there is no material on record to indicate as to whether and to what extent the provision made for these liabilities...
Yogendra Patwardhan Vs. Khandelwal Hermann Electronics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR96; (1988)90BOMLR560; 1989MhLJ310
H. Suresh, J.1. This revision application is filed by the defendant against an order, on a Summons for Judgement, granting conditional leave to defend, on deposit of the full amount of claim in the suit.2. The plaintiffs had employed the present petitioner as a sales engineer under a letter of appointment dated January 6, 1986. While in service the plaintiffs came to know that there was to be a fair in West Germany. The plaintiff decided to send some of their workmen and personnel to the said fair. It is the plaintiffs' case that before selecting the personnel to attend the fair, it was made clear to each person including the defendant that the plaintiffs were sending their employees to the said fair with the sole object of acquiring the know-how for the benefit of the plaintiffs company and with that object in mind the plaintiff informed them that they would be spending large amounts for the said tour, per person. The plaintiff desired that the persons who acquired such knowledge shou...
Sudarshan Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC542Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.S/49-104/83-L(S/10-47/83-D) dated 20-10-83 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as below.3. The appellants in this case imported Cadmium Metal Sticks valued at Rs. 24,176.00 and sought for clearance against non-transferrable Export House Licence. The licence allows items permissible under Para 138 of the 1982-83 AM Policy. The item imported being covered by Appendix 3, Serial No. 66 and as per Para 138(3), items figuring in Appendix 3 could be imported only upto 20% of the face value of the licence. The licence produced having a face value of Rs. 41,500/-, items valued Rs. 8,300/- could be allowed of the imported items. The balance value of the goods was ordered confiscation and a redemption fine of Rs. 36,000/- was imposed. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »