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.
industrial Meters Ltd. and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC793Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid three appeals are directed against the common order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V-2(85)651/88 dated 24-11-1988, rejecting the appellants' appeals.2. Shri D'Souza stated that since the facts and issues involved in all the 3 appeals being identical, they are argued together. Elaborating on the facts of the cases, he contended that the appellants supply transformers to the State Electricity Board in terms of the tenders approved by the Board. The prices are subject to price variation clause and the final prices are to be determined based on the cost of raw material/components and labour cost as per the index worked out and circulated by IEEMA. Accordingly, they had filed initial price list on the basis of the tender prices, which are subject to price variation clause. The price lists were initially filed on this basis and duties were paid accordingly on the basis of this price. Subsequently, when the prices were revised, based on the tender prices worked o...
The State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom5; [1991]72CompCas154(Bom)
ORDER1. In this summons for judgment, Mr. Subramanium relying on several judgments (some of them from the Division Bench of our own High Court) submitted that there is no defence available to the defendants and that, therefore, the summons for judgment should be made absolute. He also relied on the deed of guarantee which he submittedis clear in terms, as far as the liabilities of the present defendants are concerned and that their liabilities are totally independent of the liabilities of the Company in question. 2. The Company has becom'e a sick industry within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the (SICA). The defendants as directors of the Company submit that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) is holding an inquiry and there is likelihood of a scheme being evolved to rehabilitate the Company. Mr. Subramanium says that his suit is against the guarantors, the D...
Arolkar Ghanshyam Govind Vs. Chandrakant Tukaram Korgaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom216; 1991(1)BomCR460; (1990)92BOMLR343
ORDERKamat, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the natureof certiorari or an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12th October, 1989 made by the Presiding Authority Sub-Divisional Officer, Mormugao rejecting the nomination paper filed in favour of the petitioner for electing Vice-President for the Mormugao Municipal Council.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that for the election of Vice-President of the Mormugao Municipal Council a special meeting was convened on 12th October, 1989 as the said office had fallen vacant along with the office of the President. This meeting was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mormugao, the respondent No. 2. The petitioner is an elected Councilor of the Mormugao Municipal Council and his name was proposed for the Office of Vice-President to be elected at that meeting by a nomination made by Shri Prakash Parulekar ...
Balkrishna Ramgopal Ruia Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR328(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to recover the necklace belonging to him from the Revenue. The necklace was seized by the Department from the locker standing in the name of respondent No. 6 with the Bank of Baroda, Napean Sea Road Branch, on March 5, 1973.2. Shri Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites the court's attention to the fact that the necklace in question was taxed in the petitioner's hands. The petitioner has now paid tax in respect thereof and, therefore, it should be returned to the petitioner. When this matter came up for hearing the other day, Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, stated that since the necklace was seized by the Income-tax Department from the bank locker of Messrs. Shakti Trading Co. P. Ltd., respondent No. 6, during a raid conducted by the Department, the Department cannot return the necklace to the petitioner. It has to be returned to the person f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banque Nationale De Paris
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Bom)163; [1992]194ITR167(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated abroad. It carries on the business of banking. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, it received interest amounting to Rs. 15,92,135 from various Indian concerns on the loans advanced to them by the assessee. From the interest so received, the assessee deducted a sum of Rs. 13,16,161 consisting of proportionate interest paid on the funds borrowed by the assessee which were used for advancing loans to the Indian concerns, and the proportionate expenditure on earning interest from the Indian concerns. After deducting the total amount of Rs. 13,16,161 from Rs. 15,92,135 it included the balance of Rs. 2,75,974 as income from interest in its total income in the income-tax return filed by it. This was accepted by the Income-tax Officer.2. For the said year, the assessee also received a sum of Rs. 2,77,717 as interest on taxable Government securities held by it. From this amount, the assessee ...
Laura Hamilton V. Vs. K.P. Menon, Tax Recovery Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR252(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the demand made against her by the tax recovery officer by his noticed dated August 24, 1983, under a guarantee given by her section 230(1) of the Income-Tax Act 1961, on April 26, 1966. It is pertinent to mention that one Lisbet Holmes, a Canadian citizen, was having some business activity in India. When she was going aboard in year 1966, she was required to obtain income-tax clearance certificate under section 230(1) of the Income-Tax Act. perhaps, her assessment were not then complete or some taxes were outstanding and it was not possible for the Income-Tax Officer to issue a tax clearance certificate to her and as such. In the circumstance, the petitioner gave a guarantee for her and on her behalf under section 230(1) of the Act on April 26, 1966 undertaking to pay all taxes which were or which may become payable by her irrespective of whether the liability was in respect...
State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR105
H. Suresh, J.1 In this summons for judgment, Mr. Subramanium relying on several judgments (some of them from the Division Bench of our own High Court) submitted that there is no defence available to the defendants and that, therefore, the summons for judgment should be made absolute. He also relied on the deed of guarantee which he submitted is clear in terms, as far as the liabilities of the present defendants are concerned and that their liabilities are totally independent of the liabilities of the company in question.2. The Company has become a sick industry within the meaning of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA). The defendants as directors of the Company submit that the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR) is holding an inquiry and there is likelihood of a scheme being evolved to rehabilitate the Company. Mr. Subramanium says that his suit is against the guarantors, th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A.D. Kanabar and G.D. Kanabar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR552(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The only question referred to this court in this reference at the instance of the Department is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted ?'2. The respondent has been served but he has chosen to rely on the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned in the letter addressed to the Department's counsel and also on the judgment of the Mysore High Court reported in Mrs. Blanche Nathalia Pinto v. State of Mysore (1964) 53 ITR 64.3. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, points out that the issue involved herein is covered by out judgment delivered in Estate Duty References Nos. 21 and 30 of 1976 on July 5, 1990 CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patal : [1990]186ITR29(Bom) in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. He also points out that the judg...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Prince Udaysingh Gaekwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR732(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question referred to this court in this reference at the instance of the Department by the Tribunal is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the Royal Family. (Baroda) Trust Fund (Repealing) Act, 1956 (Bombay Act No. IV of 1957), the Tribunal was right in holding that the inclusion of the value of 1/6th share in the trust fund held under the Bombay Act No. IV of 1957, to the extent of Rs. 10,55,582 in the principal value of the estate of the deceased, is not proper ?'2. It is not necessary to go into the entire history of the case. Suffice it to say that the deceased, Prince Udaysingh Gaekwad died on August 11, 1960. He had an interest in a trust which eventually came to be regulated by the Royal Family (Baroda) Trust Fund (Repealing) Act, 1956, being Bombay Act No. IV of 1957. His interest as incorporated in the Act is found in Section 7 and Section 9(2) of the Act as under :3. Section 7 :'(1) Out ...
Lilavati M. AmIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR293(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year involved is 1967-68 for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1967. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the land in question owned by the assessee is agricultural land and exempt from liability to pay capital gains tax ?'2. The reference pertains to land situate in the City of Ahmedabad within the municipal limits. The land formed a part of a larger piece of land bearing Survey No. 3/1 admeasuring 1 acre 34 gunthas and Survey No. 1 admeasuring 1 acre in Changispur area of the City of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The then owner of this land entered into an agreement to sell this land to one Ramanlal Lalbhai Seth and others. The purchasers under the contract represented themselves as well as several other persons including the assessee. All these persons purchased...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »