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. B.A. Sanghrajka Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Bom)90; [1990]181ITR484(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The reference is made at the instance of Revenue. Three question are raised which read thus :'(1) Whether, in relation to the previous years ended March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1972, the beneficiaries of the income under the trust were the settlor's grand-daughters, Chhaya and Sangeeta, or also the wife and children of the settlor's son, Bhupatrai Amratlal Sanghrajka ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the case fell within the category specified in clause (i) of the proviso to section 164(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tax was chargeable on the income of the trust for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 as if the relevant income were the total income an association of persons or at the rate of 65%, whichever course would be more beneficial to the Revenue ?'2. The assessment years concerned are the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee is a trust settled ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR460(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Department reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since penalty proceedings under section 273(a) have been dropped by the Income-tax Officer, section 216 which provides for the levy of interest in cases of underestimate is clearly not applicable and, therefore, the levy of interest under section 216 is a mistake apparent from the record and needs cancellation under section 154 of the Act, even though a specific appeal lies against the levy of interest under section 216 in section 246 of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessment was completed under section 143 on March 20, 1969, in which interest under section 216 was directed to be charged Proceedings under the penal provisions of section 273(a) were also initiated but were subsequently dropped.3. The assessee did...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Rare Earth Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR66; [1990]181ITR22(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law at the instance of the Department :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 having been validly reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer could set off the unabsorbed depreciation of past years in such reassessment when the omission of effect the set off in the original assessment was not due to any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to that unabsorbed depreciation ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the Income-tax Officer in the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to recompute the assessable income of the assessee at 'nil' and thereby ...
Manecklal Premchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Bom)124; [1990]186ITR554(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Two questions are referred to us in this reference made at the instance of the assessee. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 120 bonus shares issued by the Century Mills Ltd., can be said to be held by the assessee from the date when to original shares in respect of which they are issued were acquired by the assessee or from the date on which the said bonus shares were issued by the company ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gains of Rs. 84,492 arising on the sale of 120 bonus shares of Messrs. Century Mills Ltd., is a short-terms capital gain or a long-term capital gain ?'2. The bonus shares numbering 120 of Century Mills Ltd., were received by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1070-71 and were sold during the same previous year, the assessee realising the sum or Rs. 84,492 thereby. The Income-tax Officer treated the capital gain of Rs. 84,492...
Pandurang Trimbak Yeole and ors. Vs. the Personnel Officer, Hindustan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR390]; (1994)IIILLJ456Bom
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. While the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 were serving in Grade 'E' Workers' Scale of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Nasik Division, Ozar, they were prompted as officers in the Scale 1. It is not disputed that their promotions have taken place on or after 1st April, 1978. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the officers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., purported to fix the pay of the petitioners No. 1 to 3 in terms of paragraph (ii) of the Company's Personnel Circular No. 403/327 dated 5th January 1979 on the subject of fixation of pay of employees in Group 'E' promoted to Grade I consequent on the revision of wage/salary structure vide Exh. 'E' to the writ petition. Said paragraph (ii) reads as follows:-'(ii) Promotion on or after 1st April, 1978.A sum of Rs. 170/- will first be deducted from the pay drawn in the revised pay-scale of Group-E. This amount will be increased by Rs.22/- representing one notional increment in Group-E. Pay in Grade-1 will be fixed in the revised pay-scale of that...
Rustam Ardeshir Gagrat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom111; 1989(3)BomCR310; 1989MhLJ1034
ORDER1. This Petition by the sole surviving executor raises a question which is as interesting as it is difficult. The sole surviving executor appointed under the Will and the grantee of the Probate seeks from this Court in its testamentary jurisdiction, an order, appointing another person, not being an executor, to administer the estate jointly with him. Can such an order be made?2. Framroze Dinshaw Bilimoria, the Petitioner herein, and Chinubhai Nagindas Mehta were the executors and trustees appointed under the Will and Codicil respectively, dt. 13/2/1957 and 25/11/1965, executed by Hirjeebhoy Dinashaw Bilimoria. In testamentary Petition No. 265 of 1968, the probate of the Will was granted to the Petitioner and Chinubhai Mehta --- Framroze Bilimoria, the third executor, having died during the pendency of the petition. The probate is dt. 10th March, 1989. After the death of Chinubhai Mehta on 10th May, 1989, the Petitioner is the sole surviving executor of the estate of the deceased, ...
Charanjit Singh Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT352(Bom)
1. By this Petition under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 in case No. 433/S of 1987 of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bombay, seek a direction quashing the process issued against them along with the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 12 upon a complaint lodged by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, for offences punishable under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(bb), 9(1)(bbb), 9(1)(c) read with Section 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(i) and 9-AA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 as well as offences punishable under Sections 193 r/w. 192 I.P.C.2. Respondent No. 1 - Assistant Collector of Central Excises filed a complaint alleging that he was authorised to file a complaint for offences under the Central Excises and Salt Act and that he was a public servant. The accused No. 1 - M/s. Pure Drinks Pvt. Ltd. was a company manufacturing aerated water falling under Chapter No. 22 of the...
Kolhapur District Granulated Fertiliser Co-operative Factory Limited V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: 1992(42)LC285(Bombay)
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. By filing these two Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged in the different cases the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirming the show cause notice for payment of excise duty, the appellate orders of the Collector and the order in revision passed by the Government of India. In these matters the principal question was whether or not the Petitioner was entitled to claim exemption of so much of duty as had been paid on the base materials used in manufacturing granulated mixed fertilisers. In order to claim such credit of duty, if any, paid upon the base materials used in the mixed fertilisers manufactured by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had produced before the Assistant Collector certain materials to substantiate that the said base materials consisting of urea, ammonium sulphate, potash, super phosphate, etc., were imported from foreign countries. The Food Corporation of India or other agencies which, according to the Petitioner, had imp...
Canara Bank Vs. Anthony Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas545(Bom)
Dr. G.F. Couto, J.1. This appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated July 30, 1987, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, whereby he partly decreed the suit inasmuch as he allowed it only against the first respondent herein.2. The appellant-bank has filed a suit for recovery of money against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that a loan of Rs. 42,000 has been granted by the first respondent on April 9, 1976, the second respondent having stood as a surety. The said loan was meant for the purchase of a Matador Mini Bus and was granted on the execution of a promissory note carrying interest at the rate of 4 1/2% per annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 13 1/2%. The said loan was to be paid along with interest by monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000 commencing on May 9, 1976. In addition to that demand promissory note, the first respondent executed a deed of hypothecation in respect of the Mini Bus No. GDL-4535. Af...
Dashrath Narhari Narvekar Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas360(Bom)
Dr. G.F. Couto, J.1. This review application is directed against the judgment passed by me on February 24, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that he prayed, inter alia, in the suit that the defendant-bank be directed/ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 21,760, being the loss and damage caused to him up to the date of the filing of the suit and further loss/damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per day from the date of filing of the suit until the letter written by it to the Director of Transport/Regional Transport Authority, Panaji, is withdrawn and the plaintiff is able to ply his said bus No. GDS 1512 on a valid permit. By the judgment review of which is sought, this court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, and, therefore, quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated October 30, 1986, passed by the trial court. However, while decreeing the suit, although it has been held that the petitioner had not succeeded in getting a permit to ply the concerned but due to a tortious act of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »