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.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR477
S.M. Dadu, J.1. Can company maintained rest houses or guest houses in Bombay with access restricted to visiting out station Officers and Directors be said to be 'exclusively used as a private residential premises'2. The point formulated in the preface arises in the following background: The Bombay Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) is a Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) undertaking engaged in the supply of electrical energy to different classes of consumers. It is licensed to do so and is therefore a 'licensee' under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (EL Act). The rates chargeable to consumers are regulated by a tariff varied from time to time. Consumers are broadly classified by the purpose to which the energy supplied premises are put to. Category 'R' is the rate chargeable for energy used as a private residential premises. Abbreviation 'C' is the rate for energy used in non-industrial premises bar those specifically excluded. The State of Maharashtra has imposed a duty on units of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jayant Chakravarty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR481(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Department has sought to raise the following question as a question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in canceling the assessment made under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B holding that the reopening of the proceedings itself was void ab inition and bad in law ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1976-77. In the return filed for the year, the assessee had shown his previous year as ending on October 31, 1975, in respect of income other than share income from M/s. Park West. A partnership-firm, started on and from December 11, 1975. The assessee had formed the said partnership with some others on December 11, 1975, and had, by way of capital, contributed an immovable property being premises No. 5-6 Union Park, Pali Hill, Bandra, Bombay. The value of the said property was taken at Rs. 4,10,000. In the s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.D. Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR456(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Act were without jurisdiction ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(c) read with section 275 of the Act, on March 28, 1972, were barred by limitation ?'2. In view of this court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Gangadas Topandas : [1984]150ITR437(Bom) and in the case of CIT v. Abdullabhai Hassanali : [1988]169ITR22(Bom) , it has to be held that, for the purpose of considering whether reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act is valid or not, the law on the date of reference is relevant.3. In the present cas...
R.N. Shah and ors. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR881]; (1995)IIILLJ606Bom
Pendse, J.1. The Petitioners are two of the Members of the Managing Committee appointed by National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of India and are entrusted with running and conducting the Boarding High School known as New Era High School at Panchgani in Satara District of this State. The School is a Residential School and thepupils are admitted and fees charged include boarding expenses also. The School runs a kitchen where meals are prepared both for pupils and masters. No one who is not connected with the school is permitted to partake of the food in the mess. The mess run by the school was part and is an integral part of the school. According to the Petitioners, the school has employed about 14 persons in the mess for preparation of food.2. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was enacted by the Central Government and came into force from March 4, 1952. Section 1(3) inter alia provides that it applied (a) to every establishment which is a factor...
Goa Port and Dock Employees' Union Vs. Government of India and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR349; (1991)93BOMLR360
S.W. Puranik, J.1. In this writ petition, the scheme of The Major Port trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') in respect of constitution of the Board of Trustees as envisaged by Chapter II of the said Act falls for consideration with particular emphasis on the manner of appointing trustees, who in the opinion of the Central Government, are capable of representing the interest of labour employed in the Port.2. The consideration of the above aspect arises in the following facts and circumstances: -The petitioner is Goa Port and Dock Employees Union while the respondent No. 4 is the Mormugao Port and Railway Workers Union. Both are registered Trade Unions. Both these Trade Unions represent substantive portion of the labour employed in the Port of Mormugao. 3. Under the Act, the Board of Trustees of a major port shall consist of such number of persons as the Central Government may by Notification from time to time specify. amongst those persons to be appointed as trustees...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. Noshir Shapurji D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR53; (1990)92BOMLR462
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. This appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay raises the point whether the Corporation has authority under the law to charge fees for parking of motor vehicles in the city streets.2. The learned single Judge by his judgment and order under appeal has held that the pay and park scheme impugned in the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondents was ultra vires the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and has ordered that the Municipal Corporation and its officers be restrained from implementing and/or acting in pursuance of the said pay and park scheme. The learned Single Judge has further made it clear that although the writ petition related to the said scheme introduced at Khodadad Circle, his order will operate throughout the city as the scheme has been found to be without authority of law. The rule obtained by the petitioners has been made absolute.3. The Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner had prev...
Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ68; AIR1991Bom436; 1990(3)BomCR594; (1990)92BOMLR528; 1991(1)MhLj61
ORDERC. Mookerjee, C. J.1. The appellant No. 1 at the relevant time was the owner of petrol tanker No. MXL-7461. The appellant No. 2 was the insurer of the said vehicle.2. On 29th October, 1987, while the said petrol tanker No. MXL-7461 was proceeding from Pune side towards Bangalore along National Highway No. 4, at about 3 a.m. nearvillage Kavathe there was a collision between the said petrol tanker and motor lorry No. MEH-4197 which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the said impact, the appellant No. 1's petrol tanker No. MXL-7461 fell on its left side and rested on the sloping portion at some distance away from the tarred portion of the Highway. The other vehicle, however, still stood on its four wheels at some distance from the point of impact. At about 7.30 a.m. on the same day there was an explosion, followed by fire and the said petrol tanker No. MXL-7461 was burnt down. It was also in evidence that after the said collision, a large number of persons from th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chougule and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR473(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Department. Proceedings pertain to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. An application was made before the Tribunal raising a number of questions as questions of law. The application was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, this application under section 256(2). Rule was granted in respect of the first question raised in respect of both the assessment years. That question reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the unclaimed liabilities written back to profit and loss account is not taxable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, even though the said liability has by operation of the law of limitation ?'2. The assessee, admittedly, wrote back the unclaimed liabilities in the two years under reference. The Department's case is that section 41(1) is applicable since the assessee had received the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Magnesite Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR154(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Department requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following three questions as questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that provision for gratuity of Rs. 44,00,000 being the amount of expenditure to be incurred in consequence of closure of the mining business of the assessee was expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the said business of the assessee ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said amount is allowable as deduction in computing the taxable profits of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 even though the settlement with the employees' representatives for payment of the said amount of gratuity was arrived at after the end of the relevant previous year ? 3. Whether,...
Marathwada Alloy Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT515(Bom)
Pendse J.1. The Petitioners are a public limited company and area manufacturing steel at their factory at Chikalthana in Aurangabad district. The items manufactured by the petitioners are subjected to payment of excise duty in accordance with the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, (in short the act). The petitioners are holding central excise licence and are required to maintain necessary accounts in accordance with the rules. On July 8, 1975 the factory premises of the petitioners were inspected by the officers of the Central Excise and RG-1 account was verified. It was noticed that the stock in the factory was less than what was shown in the excise register. The shortage found at the time of inspection was to the extent of 150.040 M. Tonnes of steel ingots. The verification of the existing stock and the register was carried out in the presence of J. P. Goel, administrative Officer of the petitioner company and said Officer gave in writing admitting that the actual stock was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »