Mumbai Court August 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 Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR738(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There are as many as five questions referred to this court by the Tribunal as questions of law. The questions are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dividend paid on cumulative preference shares of Rs. 9,67,065 is be included while computing the capital of the assessee for the purpose of surtax assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of dividend paid on equaity shares should be included in the capital computation of the assessee-company under the Surtax Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital of the company should not be reduced in proportion to the relief allowed to the assessee under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act does not apply in this ca...
Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: 1991LC79(Bombay); 1991(51)ELT249(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenge legality of order dated April 27, 1989 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Thane III Division, Thane holding that the petitioners are not entitled to the refund claim of Rs. 3,19,985.39. The facts leading to the passing of this order are not in dispute.2. The petitioners are engaged in the activity of manufacture of PVC films and sheetings and decorative laminates, etc. Prior to the year 1981, the petitioners manufactured industrial laminates in different grades which are used as electrical insulations and fittings. The petitioners erroneously classified the said item under the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 68. The duty, was therefore erroneously paid at 30% ad valorem and special duty at 5% of the basic instead of 8% ad valorem. Consequently, the petitioners erroneously paid excise duty in the sum of Rs. 476394.07, for the period between October 1980 and upto March,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khetani Textile Industries P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: [1992]197ITR593(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 the Department has contended that the Tribunal ought to have referred one question suggested by it as the question of law. The question reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that this was a case of change of opinion regarding the same material on the record and as such reopening under s. 147(b) of the Act was without justification for asst. yr. 1974-75 ?'2. The assessment was originally completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B of the IT Act on 17th August, 1977. One of the items allowed as a deduction was of Rs. 80,519 paid as interest on the mortgage of immovable property. This amount was disallowed out of the claim as business income being allowed as deduction against the property.Subsequently the ITO sought to reopen the assessment. The reasons recorded by him (ITO) for reopening of the assessment are as under : 'It is seen from th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaideo Oil Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR495(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the Department, the Tribunal ought to have raised the following two questions of law and referred them to us for determination :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee-company's case is covered by the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, consequently, the assessee is entitled to exercise the option of substituting for its cost the fair market value as on January 1, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of section 50(1) are not applicable to the assessee-company's case for the purpose of computing the capital gain on the sale of boiler on which depreciation was allowed ?'2. The assessee-company was incorporated on November 15, 1947. The promoters of this company were fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Bom)184; [1991]188ITR1(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred three questions of law to this court at the instance of the Department under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The questions read thus :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts of Rs. 96,807 and Rs. 78,805 claimed as deduction for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, were not commission paid within the meaning of section 133(4) of the Income-tax Act, and, consequently, the assessee was under no obligation to file the details of those payments? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in stating that the Tribunal was satisfied that the payments of Rs. 96,807 and Rs. 78,805, respectively, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 were made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business when similar payments in the assessee's case for earlie...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sunita A. Rawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR509(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Department has requested the court to direct the Tribunal to refer three questions of law which the Tribunal had declined to refer under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The questions read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal having found that the assessee had no materials to support the claim that the discount/commission allegedly paid to the subagents and customers was real, incurred in the character of a trader and further wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the business, was correct in law in not upholding the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer ?(2) Without prejudice to the above, whether the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, did not act perversely in not upholding the disallowance by the Income-tax Officer of the assessee's claim of alleged commission/discount payments relating to th...
Loretta Fernandes Vs. L. Hmingliana, Secy. (Prev. Detention)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT165(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be the sister of one Orlando Fernandes, who came to be detained pursuant to the order dated April 17, 1990, issued by the 1st Respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner in this petition seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 17th April 1990.2. Mr. Merchant, learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition raised formidable grounds to invalidate the impugned order or detention. In view of his submissions & in our opinion, it is not necessary to reproduce the grounds of detention formulated by the Detaining Authority while issuing the impugned order of detention. Suffice it to say that the detenu at the relevant ti...
Union of India Vs. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT531(Bom)
Srikrishna, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order which has been delivered by Pendse, J. making the rule granted in writ petition absolute in terms of prayer (a). Pendse, J. followed the judgment of Pratap J. in O.O.C.J. Miscellaneous Petition No. 215 of 1978 in Shreeram Mills Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others delivered on 15th of June 1982. Pratap, J. in turn followed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Company Limited v. Union of India and Others - : 1981(8)ELT274(Guj) .2. The facts which are material for resolving the controversy in appeal may be summarised as under : The First Respondent is a composite textile mills which manufactures yarn and cotton textile fabrics. In its manufacturing process the first respondent uses both cellulosic spun yarn as well as cotton yarn. Cellulosic spun yarn, cotton yarn and cotton fabrics which are ultimately manufactured by the first respondent are all excisable commo...
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR407
S.M. Dadu, J.1. This petition takes exception to the notification dated 12th September 1983 issued by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the Government of Maharashtra, vis-a-vis the minimum wages payable to different categories of employees and servants working in shops and/or commercial establishments, in the state of Maharashtra.2. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is the medium through which minimum wages are fixed for various employments. The primary requirement for the applicability of the Act is to classify different types of employment as scheduled employments for which it is intended to fix minimum wages under the said Act. Once an industry gets listed as a scheduled employment, the State Government becomes entitled to fix minimum wages for the employees engaged therein. Shops and commercial establishments are to be found all over the State and thus were included in the schedule to the Act. After inclusion, the minimum wages were fixed for the first time in the year 1959...
Bhimrao F. Patil Vs. Chief Security Officer, Western Railway and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR483; (1990)92BOMLR459
S.M. Dadu, J.1. Petitioner, a Rakshak under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', takes exception to an order dated 24th August 1980 removing him from service passed by the Security Officer.2. Section 5 of the said Act lays down the classes of Officers and other ranks constituting the Railway Protection Force. Head Rakshak, Senior Rakshak and Rakshak are the three classes of ranks other than Officers of the Force. Section 6 lays down that the appointment of the members of the force shall vest in the Chief. Security Officer who shall exercise that power in accordance with the rules made under the Act. The proviso to section 6 enables the Chief Security Officer by an order to delegate the power of appointment to such other Officer as he may specify in this behalf. Rules have been framed under the Act vide the rule-making power given by section 21 of the Act. These rules are known as the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. Rule 20 lays down that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »