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.
New Excelsior theatre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. B. Naik, Income-tax Officer, an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Bom)62; [1990]185ITR158(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioner is a limited company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1975-76. Return for the year was originally filed on March 25, 1976, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 18, 1978. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the petitioner, it may be stated, had purchased a property known as New Excelsior Theatre Building for a sum of Rs. 61,00,000 on December 6, 1974, from S. P. Builders, a partnership firm, which is stated to have held 40% shares in the petitioner-company.2. After the assessment as stated above was completed in the case of the petitioner, the said property came to be valued by the departmental valuer in the case of S. P. Builders. According to the Valuation Officer, the fair market value of the property on the date of the sale was Rs. 1,04,80,000. The assessment of that firm for that year was made taking the market valu...
Premchand Somchand Shah Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT231(Bom)
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. If at all there was any field of controversy, it has been reduced drastically on account of admitted position that all the questions involved in this proceeding are practically decided by various pronouncements of this Court as also of the Supreme Court and really speaking nothing much survives in this petition. Net result is that the petition would obviously succeed. Since most of the points are already decided by various ratios of this court in identical matter, it would be an unnecessary exercise to re-consider and re-state all those facts again so that the controversy can be put in concise form and which is more so since only a short point is reflected through an order which has been impugned in this case. Consequently, therefore, a detailed discussion on the factual structure may not be necessary, though only a few landmarks can be stated.2. The petitioners herein are a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and having their field of operati...
Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR109
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6108/87 quashing the proceedings for the recovery of property tax and other expenses due from the first respondent company.2. The matter arises in this way : For the purpose of prevention and revival of sick industries, the Central Government has enacted the Act called 'The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('The Act'). The Act extends to the whole of India including the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It came into force (except sections 15 to 34) with effect from 15 May, 1987. The Act covers only sick industrial companies or industrial companies which have the potential to become sick. The Act empowers the Central Government to establish a Board to be known as the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction to exercise the jurisdiction and powers, and discharge the functions and duties imposed under the Act.3. The first respondent-co...
Laxman S/O Jagannath Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR14
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. The petitioner is a resident of village Sirasgaon in Shrirampur Taluka. His grievance is that a notification purporting to be under section 3(3) read with section 6(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, was published in daily 'Sarwamat' published from Shrirampur on 16th April, 1989, wherein State Government has expressed its intention to alter the present boundaries of Shrirampur Municipal Council and include in it Gaothan area of village Shirasgaon and some areas adjoining to it.3. The crux of the contention raised by the petitioner appears to be that the statutory requirements of section 3(3) of the Act of 1965 have not been complied with in the said Notification and, therefore, notification is bad in law.4. Shri Navandar, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned Notification does not call for the objections and therefore, it is not a valid notification. Shri Dhuladhwa...
Duncan Stratton and Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR204(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has challenged the proceedings taken out by the Tax Recovery Officer in pursuance of tax recovery certificates dated March 1, 1968, February 25, 1969, March 13, 1970, and July 18, 1971. Notice was issued to the petitioner-company by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-V, Bombay. In response to the said notice, the petitioner-company, it may be stated, wrote to the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-V(8), Bombay, as well as the Tax Reco very Officer, Company Circle-V, Bombay, vide letter dated February 15, 1984, requesting for cancellation or withdrawal of the tax recovery certificates, inter alia, on the ground that its assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1966-67 had been set aside by the appellate Assistant Commissioner by orders dated April 27, 1971, and August 16, 1971, with a direction to make fresh assessments according to law. It was pointed out that fresh assess...
H.N. Lakhani Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR594
V.S. Kotwal, J.1 The point involved is quite short, though the field of debate has been expanded on account of certain interpretation that is sought to be put by learned Counsel for both sides. Narration of only a few facts would be enough to understand the thus of the controversy. The petitioner herein was appointed as a clerk with the Bombay Municipal Corporation in the year 1957. He was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector attached to Shops and Establishment Department in the year 1973. The further promotion in the hierachy would be with reference to the office of Senior Inspector of Shops and Establishment. For getting the promotion, the employee is required to appear for the departmental examination as per the rules and which examinations are held from time to time though not necessarily every year. One such examination was held in 1965. The pattern of the examination relates to the candidate appearing in three written tests and one vivavoce. Rules provide that the candidate m...
Janabai Narayan Kale Vs. Narayan Hari Kale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR223
I.G. Shah, J.1. Original complainant in Criminal Case No. 6373 of 1977 on the file of J.M.F.C. Solapur has filed this appeal after being granted leave to appeal to challenge the order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under section 494 r.w. 34 and 495, 496 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :---The present appellant filed a private complaint against the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Original Accused) contending that the accused No. 1 is a police constable residing at Solapur and the accused No. 2 is his mother; that the complainant was unmarried and the accused No. 1 pretended to marry her and thereafter their engagement took place at Solapur ; that the complainant is the only daughter of her presents and therefore the estate of her parents was with her and she had cash of Rs. 10,000/- in her account in post office and she also had some gold ; that with the intention to exploite the comp...
Uttam Baburao Matre Vs. Satyanarayan S/O Ramjeevan Malpani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR324
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioners, who are the tenants, have filed this petition challenging the orders of termination of tenancy and possession, passed against them in the proceedings Under Section 28 read with Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural, Lands Act.2. The respondent landlord had filed application Under Section 32 read with Section 28 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, for possession on the ground of three defaults committed in payment of rent by the petitioners. The Additional Tahsildar granted the application of the landlord for possession of the land and also for payment of Rs. 675/-, as arrears of rent. The order of the Additional Tahsildar is confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Collector and also in revision by the Revenue Tribunal.3. The concurrent findings of fact are challenged in the present writ petition by the tenants.4. Shri. Joshi, the learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that the authorities below, have committed an error ...
Jagdish Jagmohandas Kapadia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Bom)384; [1990]183ITR143(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice of demand dated December 9, 1983, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Bombay, under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner became a director of a private limited company known as Kapadia Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. on November 30, 1966. The income-tax assessments of the said company for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 were completed and certain demands were raised. The demands were not paid. Eventually, by a notice dated July 22, 1983, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XXVIII, Bombay, required the petitioner to show cause why the arrears of demand of the said company be not recovered from him as a defaulter under section 179 of the Act. The petitioner, by his letter dated August 16, 1983, informed the Income-tax Officer that though he had become a director of the said company on November 30...
Ritz Ltd. Vs. D.D. Vyas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR311(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under articles 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') has challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 7, 1983, passed on the assessee's application dated May 6, 1983, in the undermentioned circumstances.2. The reassessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68 and 1969-70 and 1970-71 were completed under section 148/143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The reassessments were challenged, inter alia, on the ground that they were made beyond the time limit prescribed for their completion. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the challenge and held that the reassessments were not barred by limitation. Observing that certain procedural irregularities were committed while making the reassessment, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessments directing the Income-ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »