Mumbai Court November 1990 Judgments
Rakhee Beneficiary Trust Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)37ITD228(Mum.)
1. These are four appeals by two appellants relating to assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 against the orders under Section 263 passed by the CIT, Bombay City VIII, Bombay. Since the facts in both these cases are similar they were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. Both these appellants are family beneficiary trusts. The returns of income in the cases of both these trusts were filed for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 on 18-5-1984 and 12-7-1985 respectively and the first assessments for both these years in both the cases were completed on 3-2-1986. No assessments were made on he trusts for both these cases. The income determined was allocated amongst the minor beneficiaries and no income-tax was charged on the trusts. The CIT, Bombay City VIII started proceedings under Section 263 of the Act because he felt that the orders passed by the ITO in both these cases were erroneous and insofar as they were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue inasm...
Tag this Judgment!Direndra S/O Ashwani Shikdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR94
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The Sessions Case No. 10 of 1985 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, where nine accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions trial has arisen out of an incident dated October 16, 1984. Since the accused also suffered injuries, they reported the matter to the police and the police initiated Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 against the complainants. They are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli. Since both the cases have arisen out of the same incident, the Public Prosecutor, Chandrapur, moved the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on August 17, 1989 for calling the record of Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 Crime No. 126/1984 : State v. Tapan and Ors. pending before the J.M.F.C. Gadchiroli and requested him to try the case himself. The said application was opposed on behalf of the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Construction Co. (P.) Vs. Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD566(Mum.)
1. The appellant herein is a private limited company which was assessed to gift-tax and the amount of taxable gift determined by the Gift-tax Officer, Cent. Cir. V, was Rs. 13,22,480. The relevant facts are as follows.2. The appellant company was at the relevant time (calendar year 31-12-1984) was a partner in a firm called M/s. Associated Breweries & Distilleries (Bombay) with 65 per cent share in the profits of the firm. This firm had come into existence under a deed of partnership made and entered into on 21-10-1979 and the partners of the firm with their share in the profits and losses as indicated in Clause 5 of the partnership deed were as under :(1) Shri N.M. Irani 15% (Fifteen per cent)(2) Shri Z.S. Lawyer 10% (Ten per cent)(3) Bakhtawar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 65% (Sixty five per cent)(4) Mrs. Bakhtawar Bejen Chenoy 10% (Ten per cent) There was a change in the constitution of the firm on 1-1-1984 when a fresh deed was drawn up and as a result of such change 4 minors we...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Printers Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR106]; (1992)ILLJ816Bom
1. This writ petition is filed against the notice dated 1st of August 1985, issued to the Chairman of petitioner No. 1 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for Maharashtra and Goa calling upon petitioner No. 1 to remit the provident fund dues in respect of 11 employers who had already retired. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in publishing Sindhi Daily and Weekly Newspaper under the name of Hindustan and Hinduvasi. Petitioner No. 1 company is a service-oriented company established with the object to serve national, social, educational and cultural aspects particularly in respect of Sindhi community. The present petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 were employed by petitioner No. 1 company and they retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. The amounts due towards their provident fund were also paid to them. However, after retirement these persons were allowed to work as per their convenience, subject to their health conditions in furtherance of the object of t...
Tag this Judgment!Zelukhabai Widow of Ismail Abubakar and ors. Vs. Miya Ahmed Mahomed Me ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR595
A.V. Savant, J.1. This appeal by the original plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30th July 1980 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Suit No. 469 of 1963 whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and directed the parties to bear their own costs. The suit as filed on 7th January 1963 was for a declaration that the first defendant Miya Ahmed Mahomed Merchant was in occupation of the area of 176 sq.ft., namely, shed A and area of 330 sq.ft. namely, shed B on the property bearing C.T.S. No. 86-88, Ismail Curtay Road, Bombay purely as a licensee of the deceased Ismail Abubakar and that the said defendant No. 1 was at no time in possession of the said suit premises as a tenant. A further consequential declaration prayed for in the suit is to the effect that the deed of assignment Exhibit 49 dated 5-1-1961 executed by the first defendant in favour of the original defendant No. 2 Ibrahim Abdul Kadar was not legal and valid and was, therefore, not b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Ghanshamdas Aswani and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR246
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Questions of some importance have been raised in this writ petition which I am summarising below :(a) whether in a proceeding instituted on a police complaint where the accused is discharged, the Magistrate is justified in thereafter entertaining and acting upon a charge-sheet filed in the same proceedings in respect of a charge on the same set of facts?(b) whether having passed an order discharging the accused, the trial Court becomes functus officio and whether it is consequently barred from reviewing or reconsidering that order or acting further in the said case?2. A few of the facts that are material are being set out below :3. The petitioner Ramesh Ghanshamdas Aswani along with his brother Bhagwan and father Tulsidas were partners of firm doing business in the name and style of K. Tulsidas & Bros., between the period 1-4-1972 and 31-3-1979. With effect from 31-3-1979, the complainant Bhagwan retired from the partnership. It is his case that he was forced to ret...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Exice
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT110Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, the applicant is required to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,20,780.46 towards duty and penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. Shri L.B.Attar, Manager (Excise & Customs) of the firm stated that the demand has been confirmed on the ground that unspecified parts of motor vehicles received under Chapter X procedure have been used in the manufacture of I.C. Engines. The exemption is not available on this ground. He contended that these parts are used in the assembly of Automobile Engines, which are fitted to the motor vehicles in the factory and there was no clearance of I.C. Engines. Moreover Notification 167/79 clearly allows exemption of unspecified motor vehicle parts classifiable under Tariff Item 68 for use in the manufacture of excisable goods subject to observance of Chapter X procedure. Even if they are used in the assernbly of I.C. Engines, the exemption is available. He also pleaded on the ground of time-bar, since all the facts were known to th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: (1992)LC516Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This day stay application as well as the appeal were taken up for hearing.3. We find that the present application as well as the appeal have been directed against a record of personal hearing, which Shri Hidayatullah, the Id. advocate claimed that it is a decision of the Collector in the adjudication proceedings barring appearance of the Sr. counsel as well as the Jr. counsel, without a letter of authority from the assessee. He referred to the relevant observations of the Collector in the personal hearing proceedings and stated that the Sr. counsel Shri Hidayatullah and Shri Nankani engaged by the firm of solicitors and the advocate on record were also present during the personal hearing. Notwithstanding this, the Collector has taken a view that under Section 35Q of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, separate letter of authority from the assessee is required for the personal hearing. Shri Hidayatullah contended that his stand is inconsistent. As per the provisions of Section 35B...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansi Mulji Vs. Vinod Ratilal Gandhi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2766
ORDER1. These two Criminal Writ Petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be disposed of through a common judgment. The petitions are substantially between the same parties and the points of law and the facts that are involved are also common. The petitions raiseissues of considerable importance and of far-reaching consequence. I am, therefore, outlining the brief heads that fall for determination in these petitions which are as follows:-- A) What are the rights that have vested in the Custodian under the Textile undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 after takeover, and whether the property of the Company, namely, the proprietorship of the existing Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 can in law be said to have been transmitted to the Custodian as a consequence of such take-over? B) Whether the Custodian, after such takeover, can be categorised only as the permitted user, or whether the proprietorshi...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad Ramachandrarao Vs. University of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR112; (1991)93BOMLR839; 1991(1)MhLj844
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner holds the degree of Master of Science in Mathematics from Karnataka University. No obtained the degree in First Class with Distinction. The petitioner also holds a doctorate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in the subject of Graph Theory. The thesis submitted by the petitioner for his doctorate was entitled 'Analysis of some problems in Graph Theory'. The petitioner also has to his credit several research publications in Scientific Journals in India and abroad. He has also research experience of over 9 years and teaching experience of about 5 years. At present he holds the post of Lecturer in Mathematics/Computer Applications at the Regional Engineering College. Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner is also a recognised Research Adviser for guiding students doing their doctorates at Bharati Desan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.2. By a public notice dated 30th March, 1989 the Registrar of the University of Goa (the 1st respondent) invi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »