Mumbai Court March 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western Mechanical Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR265(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata v. Manohar J.1. Both these references pertain to the same assessee company. The assessee-company carried on the business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of heavy duty cranes. It claimed relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of profits arising, inter alia, from its manufacturing activity of making heavy duty cranes. For the assessment year 1972-73, which is the subject-matter of Income-tax Reference No. 127 of 1977, the claim of the assessee for relief under section 80-I was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. In appeal, however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee. In doing so, he differed from the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessee's case for the preceding assessment year 1971-72. The Tribunal had upheld the claim of the assessee. The Department has, therefore, come by way of a reference before us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Income-tax Reference No...
Tag this Judgment!Lalchand Tikamdas Makhija and Another Vs. J K Kuriyan, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR253(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is case of a trust. The beneficiaries are three minors. The trustees are carrying on business the income from which is equally distributed amongst the minors in accordance with the terms of the deed of trust. The departmental authorities, applying the Supreme Court decision in the case of N. V. Shanmugham and Co. v. CIT : [1971]81ITR310(SC) , held that the assessment was required to be made in the hands of the trustees as a body of individuals, a unit separate and independent from the beneficiaries. This has been challenged by the petitioners under article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Shri Bhujle, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, by judgment dated July 24, 1990, a Division Bench of this court, to which I was a party, in Income-tax Application No. 202 of 1988 CIT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust : [1991]188ITR224(Bom) , held that, in a case where the shares of the beneficiaries were known or determinate, the fact that the trust was carrying on ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Krishna Kandolkar and Others Vs. Tukaram Pundalik Homkhandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom119; 1991(1)BomCR315
Introductory.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a decree for perpetual injunction passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, restraining them from preventing the plaintiff from drawing water from the pond situate in Lot No. 12 and restraining them from preventing the plaintiff from constructing a 'mer' in the defendant's land for the purpose of irrigation of the 'vaingan' crop of the plaintiff in the land Lot No. 13.The decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed by the Appeal Court and hence, this second appeal to this Court.2. Facts and Pleadings.--The facts out of which the appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows:--Land Lot No. 12 belongs to the defendant. The adjacent land Lot No. 13 belongs to the plaintiff. Both the Lot Nos. 12 and 13 belong to the common landlord, namely the Communidade. It is the case of the plaintiff that he came into possession of the land Lot No. 13 as a tenant since about 30 years before the date of the suit. According to him,...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Nidhi Kumar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Bom390; 1990(3)BomCR373
1. Petitioner Nidhi Kumar joined the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Wardha in the Stale of Maharashtra after completing he 12th Standard Examination. The Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical College' at Wardha) conducts a competitive examination for selecting students for admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course. The Petitioner appeared for the competitive examination and was selected.2. She passed her first M.R.B.S. Examination from 'the Medical College at Wardha sometime in December 1989. Her marks list bears the date 26th December, 1989. Thereafter she applied to the Dean of the Medical College. Wardha for 'No Objection Certificate' for her transfer to Bombay ina Medical College at Bombay for the 2nd M. B.B.S. Course. Before the Medical College could take a decision on her application she has filed this petition on 30th January, 1990. This appears to be on account of the fact that the last date for submitting N....
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yusuf Noormohammed and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR504; (1990)92BOMLR196; 1990CriLJ2106
Pendse, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed this petition on November 28, 1988 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing Criminal Case No. 53 Misc. of 1989 filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, and Criminal Case No. 55 of 1988 filed by respondent No. 2 before the same Court. Both the criminal cases are filed against respondent No. 3 for having committed offences under Sections 153, 296 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as under :2. The respondent No. 3 is a religious head of sub-sect of Islam known as 'Dawoodi Bohra' sect. The Dawoodi Bohras are Shia Muslims and respondent No. 3 has large number of followers both in India and abroad. The principal mosque of Dawoodi Bohras community is located on Saifee Jubilee Street and is known as Saifee Masjid. The area where this mosque is situate is densely populated and nearabout this mosque, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Godsil Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR389(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the notice dated October 8, 1985, issued by the Competent Authority informaing the petitioner that he was directing that proceedings for acquisition of the suit property be initiated under section 269D of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 entered into a sale agreement dated November 19, 1984, in respect of the suit property which is a flat in a residential building. The agreement was registered with the Registrar of Assurances on February 20, 1985. Particulars as required under section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 37EE were submitted by the petitioner to the Competent Authority on December 18, 1984, and the agreement was deemed to have been registered at Serial No. 5434 on February 14, 1985, in the office of the Competent Authority.3. By the impugned notice dated October 8, 1985, which is stated to have been received by the petitioner on February 3, 1987, the C...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn R. Kamani Vs. S.S. Shahane, Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR665; (1990)85CTR(Bom)73; [1990]185ITR408(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated February 4, 1986, passes under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family. The proceedings relate to its assessment year 1976-77. The petitioner had a credit balance with Messrs. Kamani Estate on which a sum of Rs. 78,568 was receivable as interest for the previous year. However, when return was filed on November 21, 1977, its chartered accountants stated in the forwarding letter of the same date that they were instructed not to include the said or some other amount in the income of the petitioner as the debt itself had become bad. There was no hope of recovery of the principal amount, not to speak of any interest that might accrue thereon. The claim thus was that interest receivable on the credit balance did not and could not be said to have accrued as real income. The Income-tax Officer re...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sealol Hindustan Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT295(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The impugned order dated 20th June, 1990 of the learned Single Judge is on the basis of an earlier judgment dated 22/23 March, 1988 of this Court in the petitioners' own case. The said earlier judgment was accepted by the appellants. Following the said judgment, Madras High Court had also, by its judgment dated 8th December, 1988, allowed Writ Petition No. 3721 of 1982.2. Ordinarily, therefore, it would have been in order for this Court to straight away dismiss the appeal. Referring to General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule - Import Tariff (Section 2), in particular the General Explanatory Note thereto, Shri Dalal, the learned counsel for the appellants, however, stated that Parts of all kinds of pumps fall under Entry No. 8413.91 and that this aspect requires consideration. But this aspect, assuming it requires consideration, was admittedly not urged before the learned Single Judge who allowed the petition at the stage of admission itself. Even otherwis...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Darshna A. Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD670(Mum)
ORDER--Certain portion of residential buildings commonly used by assessee valued under rule 1BB.Ratio & Held:The common facilities and/or amenities existing in the present case, could not be termed as an impracticability in determining the value of a particular flat owned by a person. Common facilities are always there in multi-storeyed building. Therefore, there was no justification for the Commissioner of Wealth Tax for setting aside the assessment on this aspect of the matter. The property being a residential property, it has to be valued as per the provisions of rule 1BB.Application:Not to current assessment years.Wealth Tax Act 1957 s.25(2)Wealth Tax Rules 1957 r.1BB ...
Tag this Judgment!J. Vs. Gokal and Co. and anr. V. G. R. Pewekar, Inspecting Assistant C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Bom)180
T. D. SUGLA, J. :The counsel are agreed that the issue whether the Board was entitled in law to withdraw the approval already granted to K. M. Scientific Research Centre under s. 35(1)(ii) with retrospective effect is covered by this Courts judgment dt. 16th March, 1990 in W.P. No. 1653 of 1986 in the case of Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. vs . IAC [since reported at : [1990]184ITR123(Bom) ]. Following the said judgment, it is held that the withdrawal of approval to the aforesaid institution with retrospective effect was invalid and the petitioners were, therefore, entitled to deduction under s. 35(1)(ii) in respect of the donation of Rs. 25,00,000 made to the above institution.2. When the petition was filed, ITO had only issued notice under s. 148 read with s. 147(b). During the pendency of the petition, the assessment has been completed inter alia disallowing the claim for reduction in respect of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,00,000. Accordingly, the Departmental authorities are di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »