Mumbai Court December 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.
In Re: Reginald Edward Negus, N. G. K. Electrical Industries and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas443(Bom); 1989MhLJ128
H. Suresh J.1. Devidayal Tube Industries Company Limited is in liquidation. M/s. Harilal Thakkar and Co., a proprietary concern of solicitors, was appointed by the official liquidator to assist him in the performance of the his duty under section 459 of the Companies Act, 1956, M/s. Harilal Thakkar and Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') has taken out the present chamber summons in respect of certain professional costs arising out of what is known as 'instructions for brief. It is an admitted position that in respect of various items of work done by the claimant, he has been paid, in all, a sum of Rs. 8,57,986.08. Of course, he says, that payment has nothing to do with the question that is before me. The present claim arises out of a company application bearing No. 30 of 1984 filed by certain applicants as against the official liquidator in which the applicants had claimed a direction that the official liquidator should hand over the possession of three godowns of which the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR138(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The 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, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount transferred from the general reserve to the profit and loss account for making payment of the final dividend should not be reduced from the general reserve in computing the capital of the assessee-company under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. Dr.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the Department, submitted that the question was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , in favour of the Revenue. This statement was not accepted by Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, Dr. Balasubramaniam proceeded to argue that the relevant date for the purpose of capital computation in this case was December 31, 1963. In its report for the year dated March 17, 1964, the director...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Krishnan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR239(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law, at the instance of the Department. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the city compensatory allowance received by the assessee during each of the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 was deductible under section 16(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the taxable income of the assessee for each of the said years ?'2. It is pointed out by Dr. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the Department, that this issue had come up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. D. R. Phatak : [1975]99ITR14(Bom) and that this court held that the payment of compensatory (city) allowance was exempt under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, and was not a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Dr. Balasubramaniam further pointed out that two questions were re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Petroleum and Minerals P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR560(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The only question to be considered at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for gratuity liability of Rs. 77,760 notwithstanding the fact that the assessee did not have an approved gratuity fund under the Income-tax Act, 1961'2. Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT : 1986ECR276(SC) .3. The question is so answered.4. No order as to costs....
Jayraj Madeppa Kadadi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR161(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. This is the assessee's reference. It raises the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessments under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 was justified ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the lands were not agricultural lands and the sale proceeds therefrom were rightly chargeable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee filed income-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In part IV of the returns, he stated the following in respect of the sale of land of his ownership :'Out of the total agricultural land of 15 acres 10 gunthas bearing Survey No. 276/1, six acres of land were allowed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes on May 3, 1966. The same was divided into 29 subplots. Eight plots out of the sam...
Rhoda Jal Mehta and ors. Vs. Homi Framroze Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom359; 1989MhLJ124
1. The plaintiffs having filed this suit without obtaining leave under CI , XII of the Letters Patent, when admittedly such leave ought to have been obtained , prior to the lodging of the plaint., now seek an order that the plaint be returned to them for presentation in a proper Court and if the presentation is to this very Court, to present it after obtaining the necessary leave under CI XII of the Letters Patent. Ordinarily. I thought that there could be no opposition to this, However. Mr.Khambatta appearing for the defendants. Relying on an unreported judgment of Mridul J. dt,8th Dec. 1976 in Suit No. 130 of 1977 (sic) (Shiv Silk Millsv. B.M. Khanna) , objects to this course of action and submits that the suit will have to be necessary dismissed. In this connection he says that there is a long line of decisions taking a similar view and it starts with the case of in In re Bai Amrit, reported in ILR (1884) Bom 380. .2. I find from the copy of the judgment of Mridul J. that the matter...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohammed Yusuf Noormohammed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR1
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard Shri A.S. Bobade, the learned Advocate General for the petitioner-State, Shri S.V. Bhat, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri K.Z.N. Jahangir, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri K.M. Desai, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.2. An age old difference in the philosophy accepted and propagated by two sects of a Community once again came on the surface which not only caused any ripples and disturbed that atmosphere but unfortunately took a disproportionate turn and twist resulting in communal riots in some localities of this metropolis. After some hectic events there came the silver lining when peace and harmony was being restored, which however is likely to be once again disturbed and the old scar is once again likely to bleed according to the assessment of the State on account of filing of two private criminal prosecutions arising out of the same incident by two citizens. Against this backdrop the State though not directly in the are...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajantha Lodge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR346(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. There is no proof of service of the reference on the assessee. However, in response to an intimation given by the office of this court, the assessee has stated that it would be unable to remain present at the hearing and has requested that the reference be decided on merits.2. The questions that are posed read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that section 187(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not attracted in the matter of assessing the assessee-partnership ?2. Whether the Tribunal misinterpreted the effect of the partnership deed and erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the retirement of Shri G. V. Bhatia from the firm on January 31, 1971, amounted to a dissolution of the partnership ?3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that a change had occurred in the constitution of the firm on account of the retirement of Shri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gratuity Fund of Employees of Eastern B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR554(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The only question to be considered in this reference for the assessment year 1972-73 reads thus :XFFG'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the accretion content of Rs. 13,175 is assessable either as income or as capital gains in the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. Having regard to the judgment of this court dated November 29, 1988, in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1971-72, Income-tax Reference No. 115 of 1976 - CIT v. Gratuity Fund of the Employees of Eastern Bunkerers Ltd. (No. 1) : [1990]185ITR478(Bom) , the question, it is agreed, must be answered in favour of the Revenue thus :The accretion content of Rs. 13,175 is assessable as income for the assessment year 1972-73.3. No order as to cost....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR270(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. The questions raised read thus :In R.A. No. 1124 (Bom) of 1975-76 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the relief granted to the assessee under section 80-I did not call for a reduction of the capital as contemplated in rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proposed dividends to be paid out of general reserve should not be deducted from the general reserve for the purpose of capital computation ?'In R.A. No. 1125 (Bom) of 1975-76 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the relief granted to the assessee under section 80-I did not call for a reduction of the capital as contemplated in rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »