Mumbai Court March 1990 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.
Third Income-tax Officer Vs. Master Vayu R. Garware.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD461(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri M. A. Ajinkya, Accountant Member - This is an appeal by the department against the order of the CIT (Appeals) IX, Bombay, in which the following two grounds are raised :-'1. On the facts and in view of the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in allowing dedn. u/s. 80T with reference to the gross amount of Long Term Capitals Gains, without allowing set off of the Short term capital loss against the L. T. C. gains.2. On the facts and in view of the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in losing sight of the provision contained in Section 40AB introduced w.e.f. 1-4-81, that the deduction u/s. 80HH to 80TT (except section 80M) are to be computed with the reference to the net income under the respective section (As computed in accordance with the provisions of IT Act), which had formed the part of the gross total income.'2. The assessee is an individual. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83, for which its accounting year ended on 3...
Vishwanath Vs. E.S. Venkatramaih and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR270; 1990CriLJ2179
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The interview which Shri E. S. Venkatramaih, the former Chief Justice of India, gave to the noted Journalist Shri Kuldeep Nayar on the eve of his retirement i.e. on 17-12-1989, has given rise to the present petition for contempt. The news item was published in several newspapers including 'LOKMAT' daily and 'DAINIK RASHTRADOOT', Nagpur and therefore, the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been joined as contemners along Shri E. S. Venkatramaih and Shri Kuldeep Nayar - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court and a former Chairman of the Maharashtra Bar Council. By this petition, he has brought to the notice of this Court what he termed as 'gross, unwarranted contempt' of this Court committed by the respondents.2. According to the petitioner, the remarks of the former Chief Justice scandalise the entire judiciary in the country and lower its authority and prestige in the eyes of the litigants and the people at large. He has ...
Balkrishna Shrikisan Jaju and ors. Vs. Rangraj Anandraj Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR565; (1990)92BOMLR252
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioners-landlords, impugn the validity of the order dated 5th August, 1983 made by the learned II Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 286 of 1979 reversing the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune, in Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 1974 who had rejected the tenant's application under section 17 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act').The respondent's Advocate was absent on 21st February, 1990 and 22nd February, 1990. The hearing was adjourned to enable him to appear. He remained absent on 28th February, 1990 also, when the petition was heard.2. Two questions arise for consideration:---(i) Whether the occupation of the premises which are subject matter of a decree for eviction under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, by one of several joint landlords, is occupation by the landlord for the purpose of sub-section (i) of se...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›