Mumbai Court September 1989 Judgments
Rishi Gagan Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD515(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, passed under Section 263 of the Act. The only grievance is that the provisions of Section 263 should not have been invoked in the present case thereby set asiding the order passed by the Income-tax Officer and directing him to make a fresh assessment according to law. The assessee in the present case is a private trust. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84, the beneficiaries received a gift of Rs. 10,04,762 from Mrs. Neelam Mohan Valrani at Dubai on 3-1-1982. the donor is a non-resident. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment accepted the gift as a genuine gift and observed as follows: During the year of account the beneficiaries have received gift from Mrs. Neelam Mohan Valrani at Dubai in 3-1-1982. She is a non-resident. The declaration of the gift by the donor and donee has been made in Dubai before the Consulate General of India, Du...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. E. Merck (i) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD509(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1976-77.2. The only dispute in this appeal is concerning the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following two grounds have been raised in this appeal: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in entertaining appeal against the ITO's order levying interest Under Section 215 when there are no provisions in the I.T. Act for the same. (2) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 7,33,346 levied Under Section 215.3. An estimate of advance tax was filed at 'nil' on 15-12-1975. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 28,88,820.The tax thereon was worked out by the ITO at Rs. 18,19,956. As no advance tax was paid, the ITO had levied an interest under Section 215 at Rs. 7,33,346.4. In an appeal filed against the order of assessment, the assessee, int...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Ramchandra Mane Vs. Rajaram Bapu Lakule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom144
ORDERSharad Manohar, J.1. Introductory paragraph -- The above two WritPetitions arise out of cognate proceedings between the same parties. Decision on Writ Petition No. 3438 of 1980 will obviate the decision on Special Civil Application No. 1284 of 1978 more or less completely. However, we are stating facts relating to both the Writ Petitions which are, more or less, common.2. Facts relating to both the petitions -- Petitioner No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 1284 of 1978 (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the mortgagor') is, admittedly, the original owner of the suit property which is C.T.S. No. 926, Peth Bhag, Sangli. On 22nd January 1962, he executed a document purporting to be a mortgage by conditional sale (Exhibit 41) of the suit property in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3438 of 1980. (He will be referred to hereinafter as 'the mortgagee'.) The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and it was to be repaid within 5 years after which repayment the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. May and Baker (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR109(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the Revenue, raises a single question, which reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment cannot be proportionately taken in accordance with the period of the previous year even though the previous year may consist of less than 12 months and in consequently, directing the Income-tax Officer to recalculate the surtax payable by taking the capital base at Rs. 8 lakhs instead of Rs. 6 lakhs taken by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The question is posed with reference to the assessment of the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1973-74.3. Under the Act, surtax is leviable on so much of the assessee's chargeable profits as exceed the statutory deduction provided for by the Act at the rate specified in its Third Schedule. 'Chargeable ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Charterers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Bom)210; [1990]185ITR354(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The two questions of law referred to this court at the instance of the Departmrnt are :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under section 35B should be allowed to the assessee ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee's activities are covered by sub-clauses (ii) and (vii), instead of clauses (iii) and (viii) of section 35B(1)(b) and hence holding that Explanation 2 inserted by the Finance Act, 1973, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1968, is not applicable in this case ?'2. The assessee, a firm, carries on business as freight-brokers and shipping agents. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. During the relevant previous years, the assessee undertook to charter foreign ships for the import of foodgrains, etc., for the Government of India and received commission from th...
Tag this Judgment!Fatimabai Noor Mohamed (Mrs.) Vs. M. Khallil Ahmed and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR606
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This writ petition is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st of March, 1984, passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Appeal No. 644 of 1982 confirming the judgment and order dated 30th of September, 1982, passed by the learned Judge of the same Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is a deemed tenant and/or protected licensee.2. Few facts which gave rise to this litigation are that the present petitioner defendant was carrying on the business of pan beedi through her husband as her constituted attorney in the suit premises at Jacob Circle, Bombay. It is not disputed that by an assignment deed dated 16th September, 1964, the petitioner purchased the said business and it is also mentioned in the said assignment deed that the said business of pan beedi was being carried on by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner since the year 1954. On 1st of September, 1972, the present petitioner entered into an agreement w...
Tag this Judgment!Kannaya Devjibhai Borisa and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom394; 1990(1)BomCR546
ORDERC. Mookerjee, C. J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have claimed that theyare entitled to the benefits of special provisions for Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra in matters of admission to education institutions or employment promotion to the posts under the said State. According to the respondents each of these petitioners must be deemed to have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after the date of the issue of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and therefore they are not entitled to enjoy the said benefits/protections for Scheduled Tribes in this State notwithstanding the fact that in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the castes to which the petitioners belong have been specified as a Scheduled Castes both in relation to the State of Maharashtra as also the State from which they had migrated. The petitioners have been granted caste certificates by the appropriate authorities to the effect that they belong to acaste which is reco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Bom)69; [1990]181ITR59(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It raises the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim that the share issue expenses of Rs. 9,32,946 was an expenditure of revenue nature allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71, the relevant previous year having ended on June 30, 1969.3. The assessee manufactures pharmaceuticals. It had entered into an agreement of technical collaboration with its parent company in the United Kingdom which was due to expire in the beginning of 1967. The assessee applied to the Government of India for permission to enter into a fresh technical collaboration agreement so that it could continue to obtain the benefit of research being carried out by the parent company and also day-to-day advice in respect of the manufacture of existin...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Shrirang Sapkal and ors. Vs. the In-charge Zonal Manager, Mah. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR746]; (1993)IIILLJ634Bom
Sujata Manohar, J.1. This Writ Petition pertains to 12 complaints filed by the workers of the Maharashtra State-Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., the 1st respondent herein under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The workers are the petitioners herein. It is their case that they have been working with the 1st Respondent-Corporation since its inception and even prior thereto, with the predecessor in title of the 1st respondent, viz. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, which is respondent No. 3 herein. Their services were treated as those of seasonal workers by the respondents. Accordingly letters to termination were issued to the petitioners terminating their services as from 31st December, 1988. This notice of termination was challenged in the complaints as illegal and contrary to law.2. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Maharashtra State Co-operati...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Motiram Awarkar Vs. Pushpa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC592
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 196/87 dated 15-3-1989, by the Sessions Judge, Akola, dismissing the revision arising out the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, dated 22-5-1987 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5/86, the applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The main contention of the applicant is that he was married with the non-applicant No. 1 on 8-3-1985. She stayed for a day with him and thereafter left for her parental house. After 4-5 months, she came back to the applicant, when it was found that she was carrying. She was accordingly accosted about that by, the applicant. Thereafter, on 24-7-1985, this non-applicant No. 1 executed a divorce deed in favour of the applicant stating therein that she was carrying from some other person. Subsequently, she delivered a child on 2-10-1985. The applicant contended that this child born to the non-applicant No. 1 was born to h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »