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.
Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR126(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The questions of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 20,246 incurred by the assessee on barbed wire fencing is an allowable/revenue expenditure of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the assessee is entitled to any depreciation on the cost incurred by the assessee in raising the said barbed wire fencing ?'2. The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee had claimed revenue expenditure which included an expenditure of Rs. 20,246. These expenses were incurred for putting up a barbed wire fencing at the assesee's factory premises at Khopoli. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim observing that it was of capital nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's claim and held...
Shah Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR537(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Two questions are referred here at the instance of the assessee.2. The first question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is a 'manufacturing company' ?'3. Counsel are agreed that the answer to the first question is governed by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case, CIT v. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 696 and that the answer is in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The first question is, accordingly, so answered.4. The second question, as referred, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the dumpers are 'road transport vehicles' on which no depreciation is allowable under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'5. It is agreed by counsel that the word 'depreciation' in -the question should be substituted by the words 'development rebate'. The second question is refrained accordingly.6. The second question is relevant in regard to the assessment year 1970...
Khadya Peya Vikreta Sangh and ors. Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR39; 1989MhLJ291
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Khadya Peya Vikreta Sangh, Akola, an association of persons carrying on business of running lodging and boarding houses in the town of Akola and its 22 members have by this petition challenged the new mode of determination of the rateable value of the buildings in which the business in carried on for the levy of the consolidation property tax by the Municipal Council, Akola, the sole respondent. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 14 who are carrying on the business in rental buildings have also challenged the imposition of the said levy upon them.2. Until September/October 1985 the said tax was being levied only on the owners of the buildings and that too after determining the rateable value of the building on the basis of actual rent. The respondent drastically changed the old measure of determination of the rateable value. Room rent charged from the guests in the lodging houses in the town was taken to be the new measure. Average room rent was determined at Rs. 8/- per room p...
Sitaram Son of Krishnaji Jibhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR570
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for committing the murder of Rukhminibai on 6-3-1984 at village Jaitala, taluka and District Nagpur. The appellant is the distant relative of the deceased and is a resident of village Gumgaon. According to the prosecution, 8 days prior to the date of the incident, the appellant has been to the house of the deceased and had his meals there. Again on the day of the incident i.e. 6-3-1984, it is alleged that he had come between 11-30 a.m. and 12-00 noon to the house of the deceased and committed the murder of the deceased while the other members of the family were out, and removed the silver patlis and bangles from her body. A report came to be lodged by Prabhakar ( P.W. 1) on the same day, which implicates the appellant. On the basis of this report offence was registered by P.S.I. Hande ( P.W. 11). He did the necessary in...
Shri Shantilal Dhanji Dedia Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC465Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is preferred by Shantilal D. Dedhia, Prop, of M/s. Anmol Jewellers against the Order of the Deputy Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, inter-alia confiscating gold ornaments weighing 109.650 gms.valued at Rs, 16000/- and further imposing penalty of Rs. 2000/- upon him.2. I have heard the appellant's advocate on 6.4.1988 and carefully considered the submissions made in the appeal memo as well as advanced at the time of hearing.3. The facts of the case are that the employees of M/s. Anmol Jewellers holding Gold Dealer Licence tendered a consignment of gold ornaments under a Mint Voucher to India Govt. Mint, Bombay, on 19.11.1985 totally weighing 863.200 gms. for melting, refining, and conversion into standard gold bars. The Gold Control Officer posted at the India Govt.Mint, Bombay, while examining the said gold ornaments found that the gold ornaments weighing 109.650 gms. are in crude form. The said 109.650 gms. gold ornaments, therefore, were seized by the Gold Contro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sidhwa Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: [1991]188ITR98(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. A construction of the provisions of section 155(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is called for in this reference at the instance of the Revenue.2. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee claimed a bad debt of Rs. 10,305. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the debt had become had not in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65 but in the preceding previous year. The Income-tax Officer's finding was upheld in appeal. At the stage, the assessee requested the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to direct the Income-tax Officer to rectify the assessment for the assessment year 1963-64 under the provision of section 155(6). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to do so, but observed that the assessee was free to ask the Income-tax Officer to make such a rectification. The assessee so asked. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The a...
Manohar Shankar Aarde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR25
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985, and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.2. This order of conviction passed on 9-2-1987 by Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 553 of 1986 is impugned by the convicted accused by this appeal.3. According to the prosecution, two constables K.D. Shinde and D.K. Gaikwad (P.W. 2) respectively were deputed on Bandobast duty at the S.T. Bus station at Kalyan. At about midnight on 8-6-1986 the said constables noticed the appellant sitting on the bench at the Bus-stand. While they were making enquiries from the nearby passengers, the appellant tried to run away the Bus-stop in a hurry arising his suspicion. The two constables therefore, chased the appellant and caught him nearby.4. The appellant, was then brought back to the same bench at the bus-stop and two panchas Vani (P.W. 3) and Razak (P.W. 4) respectively ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Colour Shade Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR594(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this reference at the instance of the Revenue reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the development rebate on the machinery installed during the year of account 1972 could be computed in the assessment year 1973-74 and carried forward to the subsequent year, even though the necessary reserve was not created in the account year 1972 which was a year of loss ?'.2. Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of this court's judgment in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S Rajagopalan, ITO : [1973]92ITR241(Bom) . The question is, accordingly, so answered.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sahney Steel and Press Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)71; [1989]177ITR354(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The two questions referred to us for opinion at the instance of the Department read thus:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on commission of Rs. 1,84,691 paid to Shri Pritam Singh Bedi ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the lamination unit set up by the assessee ?'2. The assessee-company carries on business of manufacture of automobile spare parts, its sales include exports. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, its exports worked out to about Rs. 16 lakhs. Exports were made through one Shri Pritam Singh Bedi of Messrs. Export Trading Company, Kular, Bombay, with whom an agreement was entered into. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35B on expenditure which included pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Telelink Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)128; [1989]177ITR291(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The only question in the reference, made at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company can be treated as one engaged in a priority industry and whether deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and development rebate at higher rate are admissible ?'2. The issue to be considered is whether the assessee manufactures or produces one or more of the articles or things listed in the Sixth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee manufactures tele communication equipment and also fabricates and assembles it. It was treated by the Income-tax Officer as falling within the definition of a priority industry and was given benefits accordingly, the Additional commissioner of Income-tax invoked section 263 of the Act and called upon the assessee to show cause why these benefits should not be withdrawn. He relied upon the provisions of the first Schedule to the Industries (Developme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »