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.
Abdul Quayaum Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR437; [1991]70CompCas368(Bom)
A.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition raises a question in regard to the scope and ambit of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was held by this court that the term 'officer or employee of a company' as used in section 630 applies not only to the existing officers or employees but also to past officers or employees if such officer or employee either (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property, or (b) having obtained such property during the course of his employment, withhold the same after the termination of his employment. The Calcutta High Court disagreed with the view and hold that it refers only to existing officers and employees of a company. It also held that the words 'any such property' in section 630(1)(b) relates to property specifies in clause (a), i.e.,property of the company wrongfully taken possession of by a present officer or employee of the company. The Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. : (1988)IILLJ202SC , d...
Ramkrishna Pandurang Acharekar Vs. Ivth Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR159(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By the petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the legality of recovery proceedings against his property known as 'Junki Niwas', D. L. Vaidya Road, Dadar, Bombay-400 028, by the Tax Recovery Officer, G Ward, Bombay, and the proposed sale of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said property bona fide and in good faith for a sum of Rs. 80,000. The negotiations therefore started some time in April, 1980. After making necessary inquiries as to the title of the vendor, the sale deed was executed on April 7, 1981. Tax clearance certificate dated October 5, 1981, from the Income-Tax Officer under Section 230A of the Income-Tax Act 1961, was obtained by the vendors, on the basis of which the sale deed was registered on April 23, 1982. Besides the usual inquiries, the petitioner, it is stated, had given notice in two local Marathi newspapers Bombay Sakal and Navashakti, thereby asking any person having any ...
Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another Vs. Inspecting Assistan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Bom)35; [1990]184ITR123(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148/147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1982-83.2. The assessment was originally completed allowing the petitioners claim for deduction under section 35(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of donation of Rs. 12,00,000 paid to K. M. Scientific Research Centre, an institution then approved under that section by the prescribed authority, the said approval, it appears, was withdraw by the prescribed authority by a notification dated January 2, 1986 with retrospective effect. It further appears that on the basis of this information, the Income-tax Officer is stated to have formed the belief that the petitioners' income charged to tax had escaped assessment and issued the impugned notice under section 148/147(b) requiring the petitioners to file their re...
Sheila Brij Jaggi Vs. 11th Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR50(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81. Her case is that she filed her return for the year originally on December 30, 1980, and a revised return on October 20, 1981. So far as she is aware, the assessment was not made. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsonadas : [1959]36ITR569(SC) , Shri Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Contended that valid notice under section 148 of the Act could not have been issued when the return was filed but no assessment was completed. In the absence of the affidavit-in reply, the averments made in the petition, it was stated remained unrebutted.2. Shri Jetly, learned counsel for the Income-tax Department, on the other hand, invited the court's attention to the fact that, even according to the petitioner, the return of income was not accompanied by the profit and lo...
Samir Diamonds Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. A.K. Gautam, Income-tax Officer, a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR410(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The petitioner is a limited company. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has challenged the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 30, 1985, for the assessment year 1980-81. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed its return of income originally on June 26, 1980 declaring an income of Rs. 5,30,454. The assessment was completed on September 1, 1982, computing the petitioner's total income at Rs. 10,92,977. On March 30, 1985, the Income-tax Officer issued the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act requiring the petitioner to file its return of income for the assessment year 1980-81. The return was filed on April 30, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote to the Income-tax Officer three letters by means of which it requested the Income-tax Officef to furnish it with the reasons for the issue of notice and the provision under which the notice was issued. No info...
Vidula Bhalchandra Limaye Vs. Bhalchandra Vinayak Limaye and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR283
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. First Appeals Nos. 267 of 1981, 268 of 1981, 903 of 1981 and 858 of 1987 are the matters arising our of the matrimonial dispute between the wife and the husband. All these first appeals came up before me on 9th March, 1990 and Shri Angel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the wife in these matters started arguing the appeals ex parte, as the husband was absent in the Court. After hearing the said matter for a while I adjourned the said first appeals and directed Shri Angal to give notice to the husband stating in it that the said matters had come up for final hearing on 9-3-1990 and are part heard and are kept on 13th March, 1990. I gave the aforesaid direction to Shri Angal because Shri Angal took me through the earlier record and showed to me as to how the husband is doing his best every time to shunt off the said matters on one count or the other. When the matters were fixed on 13th March, 1990 and the said date was brought to the notice of the husband by Shri...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Acce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)(33)LC116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Mahindra ft Mahindra Ltd situated at Plant No. 1, Satpur Nasik-7 have filed the present appeal petition against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ft Customs, Nasik under his order No. VGN(30)l21/57A/T-2/86 Pt. 1 dated January 1988 wherein he his held that Screw Jack with haadle is not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of Motor Vehicle and thereby disallowed the Modvat Credit taken wrongly on screw jack with handle with effect from 5.2 1987 under the provisions of Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (a) The appellants maintain that the basic requirements of Rule 57A which permits the taking of credit of the Paid paid on the inputs is that the inputs Should be used in or in relation to manufature of the final products. Supreme Court in case of Indian Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar has held that the vehicles used in mining operations, so also the basket used in transporting the mined ore also,...
Prahlad S/O Sheshrao Rekhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through P.S.O. Ak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1537
ORDER1. Question as posed in this application pertains to applicability of proviso to sub-s. (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) in the matter of grant of bail u/S. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act').2. The applicant was arrested on 1-12-1989 on having found in possession 4.90 Kgs of Ganja. He is, therefore, being prosecuted for the offence punishable u/S. 20 of the Act. The prosecution on 6-2-1990 filed a chargesheet i.e. beyond 60 days.3. Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, therefore, asserted that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in view of the provisions laid down in proviso (a) to sub-s. (2) of S. 167 of the Code. He placed reliance on the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau : 1990CriLJ62 . The applicant-Rajanikant in that case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under the Act. The Supreme Court w...
Correa Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P.S. Sankaran and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR344(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioner company has, by this petitions under article 226 of the constitution of India, challenged the orders dated April 17, 1985, and March 4, 1986, passed by the central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting the petitioner's application for recognition under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Admittedly, there is no formal agreement between the petitioner company and the Government of Iraq with regard to rendering of technical services, the agreement is stated to be recorded in the form of a letter dated January 25, 1983, written by the petitioner-company to the Advisor to the mayor. Amagnet A 1 Asimah, Baghdad, Iraq, exhibit A to the petition. Representation dated April 26, 1982, was made to the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the chartered accountants of the petitioner company for the approval of the agreement under section 80-O, whereafter, some correspondence was exchanged between the Board and the petitioner-company. Ultimately, by its letter dated Ap...
Mahesh Chandra Overseas Corporation Vs. S.K. Shrivastav and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR336(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a partnership firm, carrying on business as a job contractor, i.e., supply of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers abroad, has challenged the notice dated March 2, 1984, issued by the First Income-tax Officer, GA-Ward, Piramal Chambers, Bombay, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessment was originally completed under section 144 on March 31, 1981. It was reopened under section 146 on April 8, 1981. Fresh assessments were made under section 143(3) read with section 144B on June 18, 1981.2. After the assessment was completed, the internal audit of the Income-tax Department raised a number of objections and made general observations regarding the petitioner's above assessment. On the basis thereof, the Income-tax Officer, in the first instance, felt that the assessment required to be rectified under section 154/155 of the Income-tax...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »