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.
Nagrik Vikas Parishad and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom87; 1989(3)BomCR210; (1989)91BOMLR332
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the change of user proposed by the respondents vis-a-vis land hearing C.S. Nos. 433 to 438 at 12th Lane Kamatipura, Bombay-400008.2. The aforesaid land was reserved as a playground in the sanctioned Development Plan of 'E' Ward, Greater Bombay. An Urban Renewal Scheme has been in the pipeline since the year 1976. It required tremendous resources and the Scheme was to depend upon financial assistance from the World Bank. For various reasons, not relevant to be mentioned here, assistance from the World Bank was not forthcoming. The Prime Minister's Grant Project was formulated sometime in the year 1986-87. The object of this Project was to take-over and demolish dilapidated cessed buildings and replace the same with several and expanded structures to be made available to a larger number of residents vis-a-vis those who got dishoused as a result of the take-over and demolition. The land afore-mentioned wa...
Asbestos Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: [1991]192ITR89(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The two questions raised in this reference are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reimbursement of medical expenses to directors of Rs. 5,921 was covered by the provisions of section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of computing the disallowance under the said section ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reimbursement of medical expenses to employees of Rs. 11,028 was to be considered as perquisites for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by this court's decision in the case of CIT v. Mercantile Bank Limited : [1988]169ITR44(Bom) . In view thereof, we answer the questions in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR412(Bom)
1. In this reference which is made at the instance of the Revenue, only one question is referred. The Revenue had, however, taken out a notice of motion praying that the statement of case be sent back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer four other questions. On February 23, 1982, the motion was made absolute in regard to two questions and dismissed in regard to the other two questions. On earlier occasions, the reference has had to be traversed to the following sessions because the order on the motion had not been complied with. The reference reached before us on the 6th instant and it was adjourned to enable the parties to find out what had happened. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no instructions. Counsel for the assessee states that no papers relevant to the notice of motion are pending with the Tribunal. It would appear that there is no seriousness about obtaining the answer to the two questions which the court allowed to be raised...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vimla P. Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)88CTR(Bom)186; [1990]181ITR394(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law raised in this reference at the instance of the Department is :'Whether the set off of capital loss brought forward from the earlier year against the capital gain of the current year as contemplated under section 74 of the Act should be made only after the deduction contemplated under section 80T of the Act is made from such income ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The proceedings relate to the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee had earned during the previous year long-term capital gains of Rs. 77,520. She had also unabsorbed loss under the head 'Long-term capital gains' of Rs. 28,385 determined in the earlier year. The question that arose for consideration was whether the loss under the land 'Long-term capita gains' from the earlier year should be set off first against the long-term capital gains of the current year of whether the assessable amount out of the long-term capital gains of the current year be determined fir...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Bom)29; [1990]186ITR693(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the Revenue. The question raised reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000, being the compensation received by the assessee from Messrs. B. V. Dhuru and others, cannot be treated as 'capital gains' in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73.3. The assessee, which is a firm, entered into an agreement with one Captain B. V. Dhuru and others on November 10, 1959, whereunder, the assessee agreed to purchase from the said Dhuru and otheres the immovable property described in the schedule thereto at the rate of Rs. 35 per sq.yd. to be paid in the manner set out. Upon the execution of the said agreement for sale, the assessee paid to the vendors. As required by the said agreement for sale, the sum of Rs. 17,500 as earnest money. The assessee was constrained to file a suit ...
Maharashtra State Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Vasudev Vinayak Joshi and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR781; [1989(59)FLR708]; (1991)IILLJ457Bom
1. The respondent No. 1 is a permanent employee of the Western Indian Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Limited. The said undertaking now vests in the petitioners. The 1st respondent is in permanent employment of the petitioners as a 'Jobber' in the Combing Department of the said Mills. He completed the age of 60 years on December 31, 1987. The petitioners proposed to retire the respondent No. 1 from service with effect from January 1, 1988. This order of retirement is under Standing Order 20A of the Standing Orders for Operatives in Bombay Cotton Textile Industry, as finally settled by the Industrial Court under Section 36(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It governs the retirement of the respondent. This order is as follows :'20A. An operative shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years, but a male operative shall be retained in service, if he continues to be efficient, upto the age to 63 years, provided that when retrenchment becomes necessary a person who has...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Amar Sea Foods and Manerka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas663(Bom)
Couto, J.1. These two revision applications will be disposed of by a common judgment, since the questions of law that gave rise to them and which are material for their disposal are the same.2. The petitioner is a financial corporation governed by the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The respondents in both the revision applications approached the petitioners for financial assistance for the running of their industrial concerns and got, thereafter, some loans on the terms and conditions agreed upon with the petitioners. Some deeds of mortgage and hypothecation were signed and, in due course, the respondents defaulted. Therefore, the petitioners served on them notices on November 13, 1987, stating their intention to act upon the provisions of Section 29 of the said Act and to take possession of the industrial concerns. It appears that, after the serving of the said notices, some negotiations took place but the respondents were unable to make payment of their dues. As such, a fres...
Mrs. Olga D'souza Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Marmugao and Or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR345
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the promotion of the second respondent to the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman of the Mormugao Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as ' the M.P.T.').2. The petitioner has been working as a Senior Stenographer (Grade-I) in the office of the M.P.T. from March 22, 1975. She claims to be number one in the seniority list of such Stenographers. According to her, the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman is a promotional post for Senior Stenographers (Grade I) subject to a test. Therefore, a test was held in which she was declared successful alongwith three others whereas the second respondent had failed. The petitioner further contended that the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman fell vacant on May 26, 1986 which was not filled up for a sufficiently long time and, therefore, she made representation from time to time for filling up that post by promoting her. She was in...
Bombay Environmental Action Group and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR295; 2001(4)Mh.L.J.260
S.M. Daud, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 challenge what is described as illegal and unconstitutional 'de-reservation' of a large number of plots of land in Greater Bombay.2. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Act or MRTP Act) is legislation providing for the planned development and use of land in regions established for that purpose. The Act has been brought into force in various parts of the State including Greater Bombay. The first Development plan for Greater Bombay was sanctioned by the State Government in 1966. Rules to control the development (DCR) were framed and sanctioned the next year. The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) which is the Planning Authority (P.A.) declared on 13-1-1977 its intention to revise the plan aforementioned. The revised draft plan together with the revised, DCR were submitted for sanction to the State Government in 1985. Sanction has not yet been accorded. Pending consideration of the draft revised plan, the State Government...
K.R. Films (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD482(Mum.)
1. These two cross-appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a company and, as the name suggests, is engaged in the film industry. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the previous year is from 1-5-1982 to 30-4-1983.3. First of all, we shall take up the assessee's appeal being I.T.A.No. 6193 (Bom.)/1987. The first five grounds taken up in the appeal pertain to disallowance made by the Income-tax authorities by invoking the provisions of sees. 37(3 A) and 40A(2)(a)of.theAct.4. The facts in brief are: the assessee had contemplated to produce a feature film titled "Prem Rog". For this nurnose the assessee, through its Managing Director, Shri Randhir Raj Kapoor, approached Shri Ranbir Raj Kapoor (popularly known as Raj Kapoor) for guidance in the matter of selection of story, cast, other technicians, etc. etc. Under an Agreement dated 15-1-1981, entered into between the assessee and Raj Kapoo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »