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. Basf Ag. West Germany
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR427(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961. The question sought to be raised are :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt by way of service fees by the assessee from BASF (India) Ltd., constitute 'industrial or commercial profits' and, therefore, not taxable in India under the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Federal German Republic ?'2. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had cancelled the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this case on two grounds, namely :(i) Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act was not applicable in view of the Supreme Court decisio...
Ashok Rajaram Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR641
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. By a judgment and order dated November 10, 1987 the learned Additional Session Judge, Thane in Session Case No. 157 of 1986, convicted the appellant accused for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life which has been impugned in this appeal.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:Dattu Shankar Surose (P.W. 1) who is the complainant in this case has an agricultural field at village Dahivali in Ulhasnagar Taluka of Thane District. Deceased Shreeram Surose who was his cousin had a field on the western side of the field of the complainant. Between these two fields, there was a field belonging to Dattu Babaji Magar (P.W. 2). There is a rank to the western side and an canal from where that tank passes through the field of deceased Shreeram towards the field of complainant Dattu Surose.3. On February 21, 1983 deceased Shreeram was planting paddy crop in his field. Ther...
Keraba Dattu Borachate and ors. Vs. Sheshashai and Vishnu Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR656; 1990MhLJ183
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The question for determination in this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a tenant in occupation of agricultural land is entitled to notice before the Collector issues exemption certificate in favour of a Public Trust as contemplated under section 88-B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petition is referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge at the stage of admission as it was felt that the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Shrimant Jagdesras Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar and others, reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 687 holding that notice is not required to be served on the tenant requires reconsideration.2. The respondent is a Public Trust and claims to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust owns agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 1061 at Village Beneli and Gat No. 1894 at village Kothali in Karv...
Collector of Customs Vs. K. Hargovindas and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT143Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid 4 appeals filed by the Department are directed against the orders of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot, noted against each as per the details below:______________________________________________________________________________________Appeal No. Collector's Order No. C.I.F. value R. Fine Penalty______________________________________________________________________________________CD(Bom)216/85 6/Collr/84 15-10-84 15,99,060.05 2,00,000 75,000 217/85 5/Collr/84 15-10-84 22,83,956.66 3,00,000 1,00,000 218/85 4/Collr/84 15-10-84 31,78,702.63 4,00,000 1,00,000 219/85 3/Collr/84 15-10-84 7,84,864.86 1,00,000 50,000______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. In all the aforesaid cases, the item imported is Dedecyl Benzene, which is a canalised item and is not allowed to be imported by the private individuals. The respondents in all the aforesaid cases pleaded before the Collector that the licences have been misp...
Lalit B. Ravani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1993)(67)ELT384Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order bearing No. S/10-32/84 SUB dated 7-2-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The brief facts for purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below : The appellant imported four consignments of 100% Polyester lining material of width 44" per s.s. Raya Glory from Japan and presented four Bills of Entry for clearance. The goods are totally valued at Rs. 3,60,000/-. The appellant claimed clearance against 11 REP licences (transferable). He has imported the goods as letter of authority holder. The Department, however, objected to the clearance of the goods on two grounds: (i) the fabrics imported are shirting and dress materials and are not lining material; (ii) the goods have been shipped only on 25- 10-1983, whereas, 3 of the Bs/E have been altered to show the date of shipment as 25-3- 1983.3. The licences produced were not valid on the date of shipment. Hence, adjudication proceedings were initiated, by the Collector. The...
Jimmy S. Lawyer Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)39ITD33(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 10th September, 1985, pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment was originally completed on 24th December, 1975. During the assessment proceedings, it was stated that the assessee by his own action and by a deed dated 3-12-1971 put forth an investment along with others as stock-in-trade with the sole object of converting the said partnership into a private limited company at a later date. On 3rd December, 1971 the shares which were contributed between the partners were transferred to a Limited Company known as SJS Investment Pvt. Ltd. and consideration in respect of shares was credited by the said company to the account of the respective partners. The assessee had filed a copy of its account in the books of the said company which showed that the assessee's account was credited by Rs. 4,88,016 which represented the market value of the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.C. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR180(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department. The only question sought to be raised is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 40% of the bonus commission (incentive) which has been received by the assessee as per terms of employment, should be deducted in the computation of the assessee's total income ?'2. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal had held that incentive bonus/commission received by the assessee from the LIC of India was not salary income but income from business or profession. The Tribunal also held that on such incentive bonus/commission the assessee was entitled to deduction at the rate of 40% of the incentive bonus/commission by way of estimated expenses for earning the income for which incentive bonus was paid. It is evident that the Department has not questioned the order of the Tribunal insofar as it concluded that the incenti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Automotive Manufacturers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR383(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question sought to be referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, in computing the chargeable profits as per the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the income-tax on the net dividend should be reduced from the total income as per rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule ?'2. It is evident that the question raised in not as to whether the gross dividend or the net dividend is required to be excluded from the total income under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Surtax Act for the purpose of computing chargeable profits. Indeed, such question could not be raised in the present proceedings, as that question was decided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) originally and the order was accepted by the Department. The question revised herein arises out of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudhir Mandke and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR419(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Department has sought to refer the following two questions as questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from flats/bungalows in respects of which conveyance deeds in favour of the respective owners could not be executed during the accounting year is not assessable as income from property in the hands of the assessee-firm ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in relying on the decision in CIT v. Fazalbhoy Investment Co., P. Ltd., : [1977]109ITR802(Bom) while the Department placed reliance on the decisions in CIT v. Zorostrian Building Society Ltd., : [1976]102ITR499(Bom) and Addl. CIT v. Sahay Properties and Investment Co., P. Ltd., [1983] 357 (Patna) ?'2. In our view, a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. However, we would ...
Madras Bangalore Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR679(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference, the Tribunal has, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred to this court four questions of law at the instant of the assessee. The questions are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner retained the very income at a reduced figure which had been added by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was entitled to base his conclusion on the evidence and material which came to light after the assessment for the assessment year 1962-63 was completed ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was vitiated and was liable to be cancelled on the ground that it was partly based on inadmissible evidence ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was liable to be penalised for concealment of income by the managing partner, P. V. S. Mani ?'2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »