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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Silk and Art Silk Mills Association Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR441(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The only question of law referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Department in this case is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption from gift-tax of the sum of Rs. 25,000 donated to the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee under section 45(e) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. In view of this court's judgement in the assessee's own case in Income-tax Reference No. 174 of 1973 dated October 1, 1981, it has to be held that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Once that is so,it has to be further held in view of section 45 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, that no gift-tax can be levied under the Act.3. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs....
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. D.A. Gandhi. (Accountable Person for the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR688(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.1. This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The decreased, at one time, was the owner to the extent of one-third of the following properties :(a) the property at Bajaj Road, Vile Parle; (b) property at Ghodbunder Road, Vile Parle; (c) property at Mahim.2. By release deeds dated March 29, 1957, the deceased released her one third share in the above three properties in favour of her two sons in consideration of their paying to her Rs. 600 per month during her lifetime. For the payment of the said amount, a charge was created on the property situated at Mahim. It is also an admitted position that the property at Bajaj Road, Vile Parle, was made over to the deceased for her residence during her lifetime and up to her death.3. The issue relates to the inclusion of the property at Ghodbunder Road, Vile Parle, in the estate of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly held that, in respect of the Ghodbunder Road property which was released in...
Jagmohan Gokuldas Shah Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR574(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law for opinion under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 :ABAD'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the settlement in trust of the 150 equity shares of Lallubhai Amichand Pvt. Ltd. effected by the assessee amounted to a gift in part and is hence to be brought to tax to that extent under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift to be taxed is the difference between the market value of the transferred shares as determined by the Gift-tax Officer and the capitalised value of the annual obligation of the assessee vis-a-vis his son, Shri Khetan Kumar, for a period of 14 years from the date of the trust at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per year ?'2. The...
i. Chatterji Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR610(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessee was a divorcee. He was divorced from his wife, Ritha Devi, under a decree of divorce passed in January, 1969, after a marriage lasting around 19 years. After the divorce, the assessee made a proposal of marriage to one Miss Shanta Sujan. The lady was 25 years younger than the assessee. The assessee had a grown up son by his first marriage. Miss Shanta Sujan, at this time, was about 25 years of age and she was employed as a company secretary earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1,300. In these circumstances, by an indenture dated December 5, 1969, the parties agreed in writing as follows :(1) Shanta Sujan agrees to marry Indra Chatterji within three months. (2) In consideration of her having so agreed, Indra Chatterji undertakes to make over to Shanta Sujan, before the marriage, 20,000 shares of Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. of the face value of Rs. 10 each, and to have such shares re...
Sudhakar Baburao Bodke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR465; [1991(61)FLR433]; (1991)ILLJ188Bom
1. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Prohibition and Excise Department of the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1965. He completed necessary training and appeared for the departmental examination for the first time in the year 1966 but failed. He again appeared for the same departmental examination for the second time in the year 1967 but once again failed. He was, therefore, issued a show cause notice on May 30, 1968 as to why his service should not be terminated. Ultimately, his services came to be terminated by an order dated August 22, 1968. He made a representation against the order of termination on September 13, 1968 which representation was rejected. He thereafter appeared for the departmental examination for the third time on October 24, 1968 but again failed. As a consequence, a second termination order was passed on March 12, 1969. He was given the last and final chance to pass the departmental examination for which he appeared but failed on July 30, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›