Mumbai Court March 1990 Judgments
Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Rahul Mishra Vs. V.K. Shrivastava, Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR154; [1990]185ITR361(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated December 26, 1985, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, Bombay, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is a medical doctor by profession. Her husband is also in the medical profession. On October 31, 1984, the Income-tax Department conducted a search in their premises and, inter alia, seized some cash and documents relating to immovable properties. Within 14 days thereof, i.e., on November 14, 1984, the petitioner made an application to the Commissioner under section 273A of the Act requesting him to accept her declaration of income for different years as a voluntary declaration made in good faith. She also requested the Commissioner to waive all imposable penalties and interest chargeable under various sections of the Act. The Commissioner accepted the application, vide order dated November 26, 1985, ...
Tag this Judgment!Anjali Shantilal Lunkad Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT203(Bom)
Sujata v. Manohar, J.1. All these writ petitions pertain to import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas. In all these petitions the cargo arrived in Bombay some time prior to 18th October 1989.2. Writ Petition No. 3288 of 1989 : In the case of cargo in writ petition No. 3288/89, the importer, as shown in the documents pertaining to the relevant cargo as well as shown in the Import General Manifest, was M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills. The cargo of Hungarian Green Peas arrived by m. v. Eugeniusz Kwiatkowski. The Import General Manifest was filed on 18th October, 1989. On 24th October, 1989 Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills filed a Bill of Entry in respect of the said cargo for warehousing. On 26th October, 1989, this bill of entry, on the application of the said importer, was allowed to be converted to a bill of entry for home consumption. On the next day, that is to say, 27th October, 1989 it was presented by the importer for assessment.3. On 1st November 1989 Notification N...
Tag this Judgment!Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT284(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 12-6-1977 and 23-12-1978 passed by the authorities in exercise of the powers conferred on them under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The order of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune is at Exh. D and the order of the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi is at Exh. E.2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Bombay. The petitioner company has got two units, one at Borivli-Bombay and the other at Bhor, district Pune. The dispute in the present petition is restricted to the units at Bhor. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing the product commonly known as PVC coated paper. 'PVC' is short form of Poly Vinyl Chloride' which is a plastic raw material within the meaning of the said Act. The petitioner's product is sold in the market un...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Bhadur Hormashi Maneckji Dossabhoy Hormashi Bhiwandiwalla and Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR340; [1991]188ITR203(Bom)
ORDERT.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, a registered partnership firm, have challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated March 21, 1984, issued under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. for the petitioners' assessment for the assessment year 1975-76. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B on December 30,1977. This assessment was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bombay, by his order dated March 24,1979. Fresh assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B on September 24, 1981. Both in this and the original assessment, the assessees' income under the head 'Capital gains'on sale of shares was computed at Rs. 69,09,658. This was on the basis of the assessees' statement as under :Statement showing the basis of computationof capital gains in respect of shares of theGreat Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.Ori...
Tag this Judgment!Devidayal Non-ferrous Industries Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR614(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. It was contended on behalf of Mr. Jetley, learned conunsel for the Revenue, that 9 questions raised by the assessee as questions of law are really questions of fact, and that in any event the questions are covered by the Kerala High Court decision in the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. CIT : [1964]54ITR237(Ker) and our court's judgment in the case of Western Mechanical Industries Pvt., Ltd. v. CIT : [1977]110ITR703(Bom) . We have been taken through these decisions. In our opinion, the questions raised by the assessee are not really covered by the aforesaid decisions. Three questions do arise as referable questions of law. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to deaw up a statement of case and refer to this court, the following questions as question of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circunmatances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 2,84,445 paid to an approved gratuity fund and not only of Rs. 51,144 as allowed by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vasantkumar Govindji Kotak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR91(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The Tribunal has, at the instance of the Commissioner, referred to this court the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of section 2(m) were not applicable to the assessee's case for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?'2. The facts are in a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The assessee owned a plot of land at Vile Parle. He constructed a house thereon during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 by spending Rs. 1,43,789 which he withdrew from the partnership firm, Messrs. Vasant Kotak and Brothers, in which he was a partner. This amount appeared as a debit balance in his name is the books of the partnership firm. In the next year, the assessee, it appears, spent more amounts on the construction of the house. Like in the earlier year, the amount was also withdrawn from the partnership firm. At the end of...
Tag this Judgment!Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Bom)174; [1990]184ITR458(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders/letters dated March 5, 1986, and August 20, 1986, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Foreign Tax Division, New Delhi, refusing to approve of agreement dated July 25, 1981, with the Ministry of Planning of the Republic of Iraq. The agreement is primarily for construction of a bridge. The construction of the bridge, admittedly, involved rendering of technical services. The petitioner applied to the Board for approval of the agreement under section 80-O of the technical services mentioned in exhibit C to the application. The Board refused to approve the agreement on the ground that the services contemplated under the agreement were of the nature covered by section 80HHB.2. Section 80-O requires approval of the agreement by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Section 80HHB was inserted in Chapter VI-A-heading 'C' of the Income-tax Act with effe...
Tag this Judgment!Ritz Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Bom)177; [1990]184ITR599(Bom)
ORDER--Applicabiality of Explanation (c) to s. 263 (1)Held:The insertionof words 'filed on or before or after the 1-6-1988' and ' and shall be deemed always to have extended' at two palces in the Explanation as well as the fact that insertion is made retrospective from the date onwhich the Explanation it self was inserted can all be given proper meaning if it is held that these words are to be read in the Explanation right from the date the Explanation itself was inserted. Thus, only in cases where action under s. 263 is taken after 1-6-1988, the merger of assessment order will be treated as confined to issues actually considered and decided in appeal in terms of the Explanation (c). The construction placed herein is based on sound logic, namely irrespective of the language in which the amendment provisions are couched, the amendment cannot be retrospective with effect from a date earlier to the date onwhicht he provision sought to be amended itself was brought on the statute book. Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Udharam Aildas Thadani and Others Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR569; [1990]184ITR439(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue the impugned notice dated July 14, 1986, under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioners entered into an agreement into an agreement for purchase of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 17,00,000 with the vendors on February 6, 1979. A sum of Rs. 9,00,000 was paid by cheque to the vendors on the date of the agreement itself when possession of the property was also handed over to the petitioners. Balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000 was paid on execution of the deed of conveyance on November 4, 1981. Sale deed was lodged for registration on November 7, 1981, but was registered only on November 20, 1985.3. On January 28, 1987, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Competent Authority stating that they had learnt that some notice stated to be a notice of acquisition was affixed on t...
Tag this Judgment!Premananda S.X. Verencar and ors. Vs. Vilas Nakul Bale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR244
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The point raised in this Revision Application stems from the desire to indulge in technicalities.2. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner before the Court, filed a suit for certain reliefs against the defendant who filed a counter-claim along with the Written Statement. The plaintiff No. 1 died. The other plaintiffs brought the heirs of the plaintiff No. 1 on record. Evidently, the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit was one of the defendants in the counter-claim of the defendant. It appears that the defendant, or his advocate, or probably his clerk, was not sufficiently quick-footed for the task of bringing the heirs of the plaintiff No. 1, who was the defendant No. 1 in the counter-claim, on record and the counter-claim was slept over.3. In these circumstances, the plaintiff moved the Court for dismissal of the counter-claim on the ground that the same had abated. The trial Court examined the position, found that the counter-claim had abated because, admittedly, the heirs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »