Mumbai Court June 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.
Estate of Late Gen. Sir Shankar S.S.J.B. Rana Vs. Controller of Estate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR36; (1990)87CTR(Bom)53; [1990]186ITR578(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this estate duty reference at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under setion 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, income-tax refund of Rs. 13,69,092 payable to the deceased was includible in the estate of the deceased, though it was received, after the deceased's death, by the accountable person ?'2. The deceased, late Gen. S. S. J. B. Rana, died on June 4, 1976. The proceedings relate to the estate duty assessment in respect of his estate. The controversy is about the sum Rs. 13,69,092 which received by his legal representativem as refund of the income-tax and wealth-tax for different assessment years pertaining naturally to periods prior to his death. While, according to the Estate Duty Authorities and the Tribunal, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,69,092 represented the property of the deceased passing on death and was thus ch...
Jagdish theckedath Vs. Ms. S. Kelly and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR148]; (1994)IIILLJ926Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner who is M.Sc.(Class II) joined the Hills Grange High School and Junior College (second respondent) as a Lecturer on 8th August, 1984. His services were terminated by a letter dated March 31, 1986. The termination letter indicted that Miss S.Kelly who is the Principal of the second respondent school, was advised by the Managing Committee of the second respondent that the services of the petitioner should be terminated. Accordingly, the petitioner was given one month's notice alongwith a cheque of Rs.4021/- and his services were terminated. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal at Bombay. As and by way of interim relief, he continued in the services of the second respondent. The appeal was contested on behalf of the second respondent by the first respondent (Principal of the School ). Amongst other things, it was contended by the School that the petitioner had joined the union of teachers which was not recognised and...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Norman J. Ferreira and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR539(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax Bombay City III, Bombay, the Tribunal has referred to this court following four questions as questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was correct for the Tribunal in law in holding that the assessee was not owner of the property, 'Ferreira Mansion' on the valuation date, i.e., on March 31, 1957 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was correct for the Tribunal in law in holding that the property at plots Nos. 14 and 15 at Sitaladevi Temple Road did not belong to the assessee on the valuation date, viz., March 31, 1957 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any trust in existence as on March 31, 1957, whereunder, the assessee had any life interest ? (4) If the answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative, whether the said interest of the assess...
Technocraft Industries and Others Vs. J.C. Shan, Second Income-tax Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Bom)273; [1990]186ITR514(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By these two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices dated July 24, 1982, and February 18, 1984, under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm. It filed its returns of income for the two years on July 21, 1979, and July 25, 1980, respectively. The assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was completed under Section 143(1) on March 1, 1982, while for the assessment year 1980-81 was completed under Section 143(3) on January 11, 1983.2. The Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) for the assessment year 1979-80 on July 24, 1982. From the reasons recorded by him for reopening the assessment (copies of which were furnished to the court and the petitioners' advocate at the time of hearing), the material on the basis of wh...
Eskay Fine Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC780Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. S/10-75/83 dated 15-12-1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, ordering confiscation of 16 drums declared to contain Diethylene Diamine Tech 63.3% valued at Rs. 54,833/- under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act but allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 27,000/-.2. The appellants imported the aforesaid item and presented the Bill of Entry No. 3199/310 and claimed its clearance under OGL vide Appendix 10 of the Import Policy AM 1982-83. The authorities however objected to its clearance and got the same examined by the Chemical Examiner/Dy.Chief Chemist, who vide his report dated 28-5-1983 opined that both the samples taken therefrom were of Diethylene Diamine (Piperazine) in the form of solid mass, with active ingredient being 59.9% and 59.2%. The authorities therefore issued a show cause notice dated 28-6-1983 alleging that the import of Piperazine was canalised under Appendix 9 of...
Rasik Ramji Kamani Vs. S.i. Tripathi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: [1993]202ITR74(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Jetley for respondents waives service. Heard counsel.2. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated November 23, 1989, passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission under section 245HA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under section 22HA of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner had filed Income-tax and wealth-tax applications under section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act and section 22C(1) of the Wealth-tax Act on July 22, 1976. The application was admitted for income-tax and wealth-tax on December 15, 1976. For Income-tax, the application was admitted for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, while, in respect of wealth-tax, the application was admitted for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. On admission of the applications, the petitioner was directed to file statements of facts on December 24, 1976, and December 27, 1976, for Income-tax and wealth-tax...
Rajendra Dinkar Yadav and anr. Vs. Bhagirathibai Shripati Jadhav (Smt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR415
H. Suresh, J.1 Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgement.2. Pune Municipal Servants Co-operative Bank Ltd., are the owners of a certain property situated at 768, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-30. (They are hereinafter referred to as the landlords of the said property). They filed a civil suit bearing No. 987 of 1964 against their tenant Shripati Jadhav, (since deceased) for possession of a tenement under section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act. In para 1 of the plaint the premises was described as the shop premises on the ground floor admeasuring about 9 'khans'. On December 21, 1964, they filed consent terms and a decree was passed in terms of the consent terms. The relevant clauses of the consent terms as translated are as follows:'1) The defendant admits and agrees to the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant to give a vacant and actual possession of the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint within two months from this day. If the same is not given the plaintif...
Girnar Tea Vs. Brook Bond (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR97
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The 2nd plaintiffs manufacture and deal in tea which was marketed under the trade mark 'GIRNAR'. They marketed the tea in card-board cartons. In 1983 the 2nd plaintiffs gave to the 1st plaintiffs a licence to use the mark 'GIRNAR' and on May 12, 1986, assigned it to the 1st plaintiffs. During the years 1982 to 1986 the 1st plaintiffs sold the tea in pouches which bore the mark 'GIRNAR' and in June, 1986 reverted to cartons which also bore the mark.2. There is no duspute that the mark 'GIRNAR' had acquired a considerable reputation by 1986 and that the reputation still endures; also that the value of the tea sold under the mark was and is substantial.3. In May, 1986 the defendant started using the trade mark 'GULNAR' upon cardboard cartons in which they sold their tea. The plaintiff gave them notices to cease and desist from so doing and they filed this suit before they received the defendant's reply dated July 16, 1986.4. The suit is a passing off action and seeks t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Ushaben Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR485(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1.This is a reference at the instance of the Department. The proceedings relate to the assessment of the assessee-trust for the assessment year 1969-70. It was stated by the assessee before the Wealth-tax Officer that the beneficiaries had already been assessed in respect of their interest in the trust property. However, the Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment on the trust properties treating it an individual. The assessment was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Following its order for the assessment year 1968-69, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the Wealth-tax Officer to assess the trust, notwithstanding the fact that assessments in the individual hands of the beneficiaries had already been made ?3. Shri Jetley, l...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. M. Charitakis and Dr. G.B. Ramasarma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR490(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this estate duty reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred three questions of law to this court of opinion. The questions read thus :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire probate court-fee of Rs. 8,42,709.50 is deductible under Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, from the estate duty payable and not only so much of it as relatable to the properties or portions thereof actually brought to tax under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that relief under Section 50 of the Estate duty Act, 1953, has to be allowed if court fees are paid in respect of the property which is exempt from payment of estate duty under Section 33 of the estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »