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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona-ii Vs. Smt. Nirmalabai K. Darekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR242(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Two questions are raised by the Revenue in this reference. They read thus :'(1) Whether section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is confiscatory and violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India as held by the Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the said decision of the Madras High Court A.M. Sali Maricar v. ITO : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) ?'2. Taking the second question first, it must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, having regard to this court's judgment in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf : [1978]113ITR589(Bom) . The question there arose in the context of the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to in the question. It was held that the concerned provision having been declared ultra vires by a High Court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acting anywhere in the country w...
Shri Akhil Leekha Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay bearing No. S/14-6-33/81 Pint, dated 8-3-1983.2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the appeal are as below: On 21-9-1981, the appellant alongwith two other passengers who were checked in as additional passengers in the Pushpaka Aviation Flight No. PE 508 were intercepted after clearance from VISADEX. They were questioned at the Customs Counter as to the contents of their baggage. They indicated that there was no other baggage other than the brief cases, which they were carrying. The appellant was questioned about the contents of the brief case which he was carrying, to which he is reported to have declared that it carried only his personal files and official papers and a pair of dress. After examination of the brief case carried by the appellant and also after check of the other two passengers in the presence of panch witnesses, Indian currency of Rs. 1,42,000/- was recovered f...
Kores (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT701Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V-2(32)/373/88, dated 15-6-1988 upholding the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23-12-1987 confirming the demands for recovery of the following amounts and also directing payment of amount of Rs. 1,41,314.73, wrongly transferred to RG-23A Part II. (i) Show Cause Notice No. RV/MODVAT/86/1038, dated 26-11-1986 for Rs. 22,12,608.58. (ii) Show Cause Notice No. RV/MODVAT/86/1043, dated 28-11-1986 for Rs. 7,47,278.98. (iii) Show Cause Notice No. RV/MOD VAT/86/249, dated 5-3-1987 for Rs. 11,92,866.08.2. Shri Shroff, appearing for the appellants, recounting the facts of the case stated as below: 3. The appellants were availing proforma credit under Rule 56A in respect of inputs on Tissue Paper, Maplitho paper, printing paper etc.used in the manufacture of finished products duplicating and carbon paper. When MOD VAT was introduced on 1-3-1986, the scheme was not extended to this final product paper classif...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burmah Shell Refineries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR672(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question raised at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'proposed dividend reserve' of Rs. 1,09,03,751 constitutes 'Other reserves' within the meaning of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) . The question is so answered.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Castrol Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR115(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Two question of law have been referred to this court by the Tribunal as the instance of the Department. They read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer to give effect to the appellate order is itself a fresh assessment order under section 143/144/147 and hence the assessee was entitled to appeal against such order section 246 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 on the excess amount of tax paid with reference to the tax payable by the assessee as per the Tribunal's order ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the second question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co., Ltd. : [1984]146ITR452(Bom) . Counsel are also agreed that i...
Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR375(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question raised by the assessee reads thus :'Whether the interest payable by the Government under section 214(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be calculated on the excess advance tax payment found with reference to the amount of tax determined on the first or the original assessment made by the Income-tax Officer or with reference to the amount of tax determined on the subsequent or the revised assessment made by the Income-tax Officer giving effect to the appellate orders ?'2. The question has to be answered, it is agreed, in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this court in CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. : [1984]146ITR452(Bom) . Following that judgment, the question is answered thus : The interest payable under section 214(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be calculated on the excess advance tax payment found with reference to the amount of tax determined on the first or the original assessment made by the Income-tax Officer.3. No order as to costs....
C.K. Soni and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT360Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. 4/Collr/Gold/1988, dated 23-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal stated briefly are: M/s. C.K. Soni & Co. were the licensed gold dealers. It is a partnership firm consisting of two partners Shri Chunilal Khimji Soni and Shri Kantilal Chaturbhuj Soni. It appears, on 27-10-1981 the partner Shri Chunilal Khimji Soni retired from the partnership. A new partnership deed was executed on 23-12-1981 by inducting another partner Shri Jagdishchandra Kantilal Soni. By their letter dated 1-4-1982 the firm intimated the licensing authority as to the change in the constitution of the partnership firm. It appears alongwith that letter a copy of the partnership deed was also forwarded and the department's guidance was sought in the matter.3. Having regard to the change in the constitution of the firm, the department proc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Bom)54; [1990]186ITR433(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This reference raises only one question of law at the instance of the Department. The question reads thus :'Whether the dividend reserve qua ordinary shares and the gratuity reserve were 'reserves for the purpose of capital computation', under the Surtax Act of 1964 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , our answer has to be in the negative and in favour of the Revenue regarding the question pertaining to the dividend reserve. As regards the question pertaining to the gratuity reserve, counsel are agreed that in view of this court's decision in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT : [1984]150ITR484(Bom) , the question is required to be answered thus : The Appellate Tribunal shall determine the excess, if any, over the known or determinate liability of the assessee in respect of the gratuity and such excess only will be treated as reserve for the purpose...
i.B.M. World Trade Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR412(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred only one question of law to us for opinion in this case at the instance of the assessee. The question reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in disallowing the amount of Rs. 1,08,088 having been written off during the previous year as a deduction in arriving at the taxable income of the company on the grounds that the same did not fall under the provisions of any section, viz. Section 28 and/or Section 36 and/ or Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee-company is a non-resident company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of accounting and computing machines which are sold or given on hire and of giving services in respect of the same. The assessment year involved is 1965-66. The assessee-company entered into an agreement with one Mr. Sunder Waney, the landlord of the premises, on March 2, 1969 (1960). The landlord undertook to constr...
Tukaram Sawant Vs. Mangalalaxmi Chinubhai Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR313; 1989MhLJ197
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to a decree for eviction, permanent injunction and damages in relation to a site admeasuring 14' x 20' on the Southern side of the building known as 'Shobha Sadan', Plot No. 321-A. Dadar Matunga Estate, Scheme No. V. Matunga, Bombay-19 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises').2. Shobha Sadan comprising a multi-storeyed structure together with land appurtenant thereto formerly belonged to Shyamaldas Gordhandas Gandhi and others. The building stands on land owned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC). One of the Gandhis was a lady known as Kashibai. Respondents/plaintiffs acquired the property under a deed of assignment dated 6 June, 1973.3. Plaintiffs' case was that the lease under which their predecessors-in-title and they held the land on which stood the structure Shobha Sadan belonged to the BMC and one of the conditions which bound the lessees was not to use or permit the open land to be built upon except with the previous cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »