Mumbai Court September 1989 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. Ciba of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR455(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha J.1. The real question posed is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of freight and duty in transporting machinery received by it as a gift constituted a part of the actual cost of the asset.2. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue, opened his arguments by reading the questions and the statement of the case. The statement of the case refers to what the Tribunal held by its order dated December 21, 1972. That order finds that many relevant considerations in regard to the question had not been considered by the authorities below. It, therefore, directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to determine these matters after hearing both sides.3.The order was subsequently varied on a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. The only mention of this order in the statement of the case is that the Tribunal had declined to refer a particular question raised by the Revenue 'because the order ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Doctor and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR627(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The only question referred to this court in this case at the instance of the Department is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the interest paid by the assessee during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 merited disallowance ?'2. The assessee is a firm and the assessment year involved is 1971-72. It is common ground that the assessee had borrowed moneys from different persons in the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 on interest and that a part of the money so borrowed was advanced to its sister concerns free of interest. The sister concerns are All Steel and Asian Industries, in which the partners of the assessee-firm are also partners. It is also common ground that the interest to the extent it was payable on the moneys borrowed and diverted to sister concerns free of interest was disallowed in those years.3. For the year under reference, the assessee stated that it had no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ismailia Co-operative Housing Society L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR174(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises, at the behest of the Revenue, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee acquired only a right to litigate and did not hold any interest in the leasehold land and hence the compensation amount of Rs. 4,23,044.67 is not liable to capital gains ?'2. For reasons that will become apparent, we reframe the question thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount of Rs. 4,23,044.67 was liable to tax as a capital gain in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'3. The relevant previous year ended on June 30, 1970.4. The assessee is a co-operative housing society. It was established prior to 1944. On October 27, 1944, the assessee applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a lease in perpetuity of plot No. 7 of Scheme No. 57 situated at Sewri-Wadala Estate, Bombay. The said plot ...
Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR359; (1989)ILLJ459Bom
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These three appeals are directed against a common decision of the learned Single Judge by which three writ petitions namely Writ Petition Nos. 864 of 1986, 865 of 1986 and 1224 of 1986, have been disposed of. Appeal No. 1606 of 1988 is filed by Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha on behalf of the workmen working in its Head Office and Bombay Branch of the Company; whereas Appeal No. 1607 of 1988 is filed by Hindustan Lever Employees Union on behalf of the workers working in the Sewree Factory of the Company. Appeal No. 151 of 1988 is filed by the Company. The workmen involved in all these proceedings are the members of the clerical and technical staff. It has also to be mentioned that in view of an earlier settlement between the clerical and technical staff working in the Andheri Research Centre of the Company and the Company, the service conditions applicable to the staff in the Sewree Factory become automatically applicable to the staff in the Andheri Research Centre and ...
Vaijanath Parshwanath Udgirkar Vs. Baliram Surajmal Chaudhari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR735
I.G. Shah, J.1. Original complaint in Criminal Case Number 33 of 1980 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur, District Latur has, preferred this Petition to challenge the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 116 of 1987, allowing the Revision and setting aside the order dated 3rd July 1987 and application Exhibit 28 and discharging the present Respondent No. 1 who was the accused in Criminal Case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur.2. Brifely stated, facts giving rise to this Petition are as under:-The present Petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur alleging that the present Respondent Number 1 committed an offence punishable under Sections 161, 384, 385, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that on 26th June, 1980, at about 1 p.m. while the complainant was sitting at his house at Koshtgaon, the present Respondent Number 1 who was then Police Sub-Inspector of Police ...
Dr. Anant Kumar Karmakar Vs. Kanchanben Niranjan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR648
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of an immoveable property known as Asha Niketan, situate at 117-B Dadyseth Agiary Lane, Bombay 2. The 1st respondent was the monthly tenant in respect of room No. 3 on the ground floor of this property. She died on 4th January, 1978. On the date of her death respondent No. 2 who is her grand son was residing with her in the said premises.2. Prior thereto on 22nd January, 1975 the petitioner filed in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay R.A.E. Suit No. 932 of 1975 for ejectment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit property on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide requirements of the petitioner. Prior to the filing of the suit a notice to quit dated 1st March, 1974 was served on respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement in October, 1976 in which they have inter alia, pointed out that both the respondents are wrongly described.3. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the filing of the su...
Straw Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and M.M. Sethi, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)LC545(Bombay)
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. This proceeding which was initiated long back in the year 1975 or atleast 1977 has got itself entangled in the spate of litigation where there have been repeated remands and the matter has been tossed from one forum to another and ultimately it is being argued though the impugned order carries more or less same deficiencies. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the Works Secretary. The respondents are the Officers exercising jurisdiction under the Indian Tariff Act and Customs Tariff Act as also under the Customs Act as their statutory obligation The petitioner company is division called J. K. Batteries, which is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Dry Cell Batteries at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh. High Grade Natural Manganese Dioxide Ore is the product utilised in the manufacture of dry cell and Company has been importing said product and it is commercially known as activated manganese dioxide ore or elec...
Kishanlal S/O. Girdharlal Dayama Vs. Parwatibai W/O Narsingdas (Tapsi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR42; (1989)91BOMLR945
I.G. Shah, J.1. Original accused number 3 in Criminal Case No. 65 of 1987, which is styled as Regular Criminal Case Number 65 of 1987 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded has come to this Court to challenge the order of issue of process against him and two other under section 295 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are as under:---Parvatibai, the complainant who is a resident of Nanded, filed a complaint against the present petitioner and two others contending that she is owner and in possession of house and open space towards the southern side of her house, and that near the said house, there is a Gayatri temple, of which, respondent No. 1 is the priest an accused number 3 is the Trustee, whereas accused number 2 is the son-in-law of accused No. 1, and they reside near the said temple. It is further alleged in the complaint that the husband of the complainant died about 25 to 30 years back and since after his demise, the ...
Chandrabhagabai W/O Mahadu Lande Since Decd. by Her Heir Vs. Indu Namd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR33; (1989)91BOMLR180
S.M. Daud, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit for partition and separate possession and an application seeking a probate in respect of the Will of Chandrabhagabai.2. The following genealogy will explain the relationship between the parties :Mahadu (died in 1962)| Wife Chandrabhagabai| (died on 27th December, 1976)|------------------------------------------------| || || |Namdeo (died on 24-3-1969) Jijabai| || || |Two wives|||-----------------------| |Indu YamunaProperties A and B were ancestral in the hands of Mahadu, the other shares of that property being his brother Kisan. Kisan and Mahadu were separate. Property C is a self acquisition of Mahadu. After the passing away of Namdeo, Chandrabhagabai filed a suit against her daughters-in-law alleging that they were enjoying the suit properties to her to exclusion and that she had a 1/3rd share in properties A and B and a 2/3rd share in property C. She wanted her share to be separated and she placed in possession of the separated shar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›