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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kantilal Jawantraj Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT503(Bom)
1. This criminal appeal is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by his judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1982, in Criminal Case No. 38/CW/1981. The present respondent who was original accused No. 1 along with another were prosecuted under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, on the allegation that the Revenue Intelligence Authorities intercepted the respondent - original accused No. 1 while he was carrying a brief case accompanied by original accused No. 2 on 14th April, 1978, near the staircase of Building at 194, Shaikh Memon Street, Bombay - 400 002. In the search it was found that the said brief case contained 50 golds biscuits. Accordingly, both the accused persons were prosecuted for the various offences mentioned above.2. The trial Magistrate discharged accused No. 2, but convicted the present ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Executors of the Will of Late Shri Mane ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR254(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for opinion under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the refund under Section 50B of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, not having been determined on each one of the. valuation dates does not become an asset and hence not includible in the total wealth of the assessee for each one of the three relevant assessment years in question ?'2. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The years involved are the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the valuation dates being December 31, 1969, December 31, 1970, and December 31, 1971, respectively. The assessees are the executors of the will of late Shri Maneklal Premchand who died on March 24, 1969. The estate duty assessment in respect of the estate was completed on September 29, 1973. By an order of rectification dated November 22, 1973, under Section 35 of the Estate Duty Act, 1...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Pratap Bhogilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Bom)173
T. D. SUGLA, J. :The two questions referred to this Court in this reference under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liabilities as shown in the balance sheet of Batliboi & Company Pvt. Ltd. as at 31st March, 1973 should be further reduced by the sum of Rs. 35,01,123 representing the advance tax paid for asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 while determining the market value of unquoted equity shares of the company in terms of r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made for s. 23A/104 liability for the asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1963-64 and income-tax liability for the asst. yr. 1970-71 should be excluded from liabilities for the purpose of determining the market value of unquoted equity shares of the company in terms of r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 ?'2. The counsel are agreed that in view of this Courts judgment in the case of CWT vs . Pratap Bhogilal & Anr. : [198...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mrs. Perviz K. Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR570(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The question which is referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the value of the goodwill in the firm of M/s. Embroiders Mart, 39, Champa Galli, M. J. Market, Bombay-2, passed on the death of the deceased, Late Shri Hargovindas Laxmidas, under section 5 or deemed to pass on his death under section 7 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, so as to be included in the principal value of his estate passing on his death?'2. It is agreed as between the learned advocates appearing for both sides that the question referred to us is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CED v. Mrudula Nareshchandra : [1986]160ITR342(SC) . Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs....
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar M. Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Bom)124; [1990]186ITR212(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Department, the question of law referred to this court reads thus :'Whether the shares of the sons of the deceased in the joint family property could be taken into account for the purpose of determining the rate of tax applicable in respect of the share of the deceased in the joint family properties as per section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The deceased had a coparcenary interest in the joint family property. The Assistant Controller and the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty held that the value of the sons of the deceased in the joint family property was to be included for the purpose of determining the rate of duty applicable in respect of the principal value thereof as required under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. In second appeal, the Tribunal considered itself bound by the Madras High Court decision in the case of V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED : [1973]91ITR24(Mad) by which the Madras High Court had...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. V.K.P. Singaporia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR654(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There is only one question of law involved in this reference. Thee question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift-tax of Rs. 1,26,213 payable as per assessments completed after the death of the deceased is an allowable debt against the estate of the deceased under section 44 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. It is fairly stated by Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, that there are many decisions including the latest one of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. K. S. N. Bhatt : [1984]145ITR1(SC) , where in the context of wealth-tax proceedings, it was held that liability towards wealth-tax, income-tax and gift-tax which crystallise on the relevant valuation date are to be deducted from the wealth even though the assessment orders are finalised after the valuation date. It was, however, pointed out that there was no direct decision under the Estate Duty Act on the question.3...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Mahendra Jaisinglal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR370(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred to this court for opinion by the Tribunal is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any of the aforesaid amounts was liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The deceased had gifted Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 50,000 to his wife, Subhadraben, and son, Pratap, respectively, on November 15, 1953. These amounts were initially deposited by the donees in their personal bank accounts. Later on, the donees withdrew the amounts from their banks and deposited them with the firm in which the deceased was a partner. It was the case of the Department that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were attracted and, therefore, these two amounts were includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.3. The Appellate Controller of Estate Duty confirmed the inclusion, whereas, observing that the facts and rival contentio...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. V.G. Badamia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR170(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The Tribunal has referred only one question of law to this court for opinion under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, on the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in CED v. C. R. Ramachandra Gounder : [1973]88ITR448(SC) and CED v. N. R. Ramarathnan : [1973]91ITR1(SC) , was correct in holding : (a) that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record in so far as its order dated December 20, 1970 in Estate Duty Application No. 100 of 1966-67 is concerned, and (b) that the finding of the Tribunal upholding the inclusion of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,36,000 in the estate of the deceased passing on his death under section 10 of the Act merited deletion ?'2. The deceased had, during his lifetime, given a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 by way of gift to his wife and sons including minor sons, the amounts were gifted in cash after he had withdrawn the money from this ...
Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay Vs. Shantabai Gulabchand (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR33
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 relates to the estate of one Hirachand Gulabchand, who died on or about 23rd January, 1967. The deceased had a life interest in a property know as 'Munim Villa' at Narayan Dabholkar Road, Malbar Hill, Bombay in respect of which there was a Trust. The life interest of the deceased at the time of his death was to the extent of 3/56. The accountable person claimed an exemption in respect of this life interest of the deceased under section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. This claimed has been allowed by the Tribunal. From the order of the Tribunal the following question of law has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, exemption under section 3(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 in respect of the share of house property named 'Munim Villa' at Narayan Dabholkar Road, Malbar Hill, Bombay was allowable even though the said house property belonged to a trust...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Seth Arvind N. Mafatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR580(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessee, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, paid a premium of Rs. 3,606 in respect of two policies of insurance on his life which were taken out under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act for the benefit of his two sons. The premium so paid was charged to gift-tax by the Gift-tax Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant commissioner who upheld the decision of the Gift-tax Officer. In a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that the premium paid buy the assessee in respect of these two insurance policies taken out under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act were not gifts made by the assessee to the beneficiaries of the policy. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention and deleted the additions made in both the years of these premia amounts, From this decision, the following common question is referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »