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.
V.i.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)105; [1991]187ITR639(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By these two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. The assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 was originally completed under section 143(3) on October 31, 1985. The assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 was completed on March 23, 1987. The assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 was sought to be reopened on the ground that the assessment year 1983-84 was sought to be reopened on the ground that the commission of Rs. 18,38,928 claimed as payment made to M.S. Textiles, Bombay, was bogus. The assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 was sought to be reopened on the ground that the petitioner had claimed to have made purchases from Duro Novelties, Bombay, to the extent of Rs. 33,39,320. The purchases were party not genuine. Th...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Kunhi Korath Balan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT178(Bom)
1. Respondent No. 1 Kunhi Korath Balan was tried along with another accused Harilal B. Khalasi on charges under Sections 135(1)(a)(ii), 135(1)(b)(ii) 136(1) of the Customs Act and also under Sec. 5 of the Imports & Exports Control Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Asstt. Collr. of Customs, Bombay, being Criminal Case No. 387/CW of 1978 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The learned Magistrate found Respondent No. 1 guilty and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 135(1)(a)(ii), 135(1)(b)(ii) and 136(1) of the Customs Act and also sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under S. 5 of Import & Export Control Act and directed that the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. Being aggri...
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. M/S. Sardar Iron and Steel Mill
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR81; [1991(61)FLR600]; (1991)IILLJ438Bom
1. This appeal takes exception to an interlocutor injunction restraining the appellant vis-a-vis recourse to various agitational practices indulged in by its various office-bearers and members as against the respondent.2. The respondent hereinafter to be referred to as the 'plaintiff' was running a steel rolling mill at L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli, Bombay. On January 23, 1984 it had put up a notice announcing the closure of manufacturing activities at its factory resulting in the non-requirement of the services of its workmen. Copies of the notice were sent to various authorities as also the appellant-defendant. The workmen were called upon to collect their dues and the majority had not done so, for which reason, on September 29, 1984 another notice was given by the plaintiff this notice being at page 94 of the appeal compilation. The plaintiff filed a complaint ascribing to defendant the practice of unfair labour practice falling under items 4 and 5 of Schedule III of the Maharashtra Recogn...
Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1993(1)MhLj218
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this reference by the Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the Act'), the following question is to be answered :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was competent under section 57 to revise the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), when the point of allowing the freight charges was not the subject-matter of second appeal before the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 543 of 1975 decided on February 27, 1976 ?'2. The question arises against the following back-drop. The applicant, M/s. Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd., Nagpur, was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur, for the period January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971 on the turnover of Rs. 5,08,17,832 as sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('th...
Leela Mahdeo Joshi Vs. Dr. Mahadeo Sitaram Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom105; 1991(1)BomCR130; II(1991)DMC125
ORDERMehta, J.1. This First Appeal has come up before us for admission. However, on the application of the learned Advocates for the Appellant as well as the Respondent that the matter be admitted and finally disposed of at this stage, we have complied with their request. The Appellant in this First Appeal impugns the judgment and Order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bombay, dated 18-7-1990, whereunder a joint petition of the Appellant and the Respondent for a divorce by mutual consent u/S. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.2. The brief facts are that the Appellant and the Respondent were married according to Hindu Vedic Rites on 5-12-1956. On 28-7-1960, the Appellant gave birth to a son namedSatish. The parties lived together happily till December 1986. However, in December 1986, the Respondent suffered certain financial losses in his business as a result of which disputes and dissensions arose between the Appellant and the Respondent, and they decided to l...
Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Smt. Maria Rege and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR626; 1991CriLJ229
ORDER1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7th April, 1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate F.C., Margao, Goa in Criminal Misc. Application No. 30/C/90 the Collector of Customs has preferred this Criminal Writ Petition seeking the same to be quashed and set aside on the following facts.2. On a reasonable belief that respondent No. 1 along with others is involved in smuggling activities and further on the reasonable belief that respondent No. 1 had her residence at Merces Wadi, Taluka Tiswadi, is in possession of certain currency notes directly related to the offence of smuggling goods, carried out a raid on the house of respondent No. 1 on 18th February, 1990 and seized currency notes worth Rs. 22,000/- from the said house.3. On 31st March, 1990 respondent No. 1 Smt. Rege moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao seeking release of the currency notes seized from her residence by the Assistant Collector. On 7-4-1990 the said application came up for hearing aft...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khimji Nenshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR192(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The present Application No. 144 of 1990, relates to the assessment year 1981-82. It is under section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Income tax Reference No. 62 of 1987 relates to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1979-80. Income tax Reference No. 733 of 1987 relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee who is an individual was originally was a partner in the firm styled as Variety Plywood and Quality Plywood, Bombay, in his individual capacity On August 20, 1970, out of his separate and self acquired funds, he impressed the sum of Rs. 30,000 with the character of his Hindu undivided family property. He retired from the two partnership firms with effect from October 1, 1970. On the same day, he entered into these partnerships again in his capacity as the Karta of his Hindu undivided family. He contributed the sum of Rs 15,000 in each of these partnerships out the aforesaid sum of Rs 30,00...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Y.H. Udgiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1992]197ITR558(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolhapur, has filed this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requesting that the Income-tax Tribunal be directed to refer to this court the various question formulated in para 6 of the application. The said questions read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in its order on miscellaneous application in cancelling the levy of penalty for concealment on a ground different from that in the original appellate order, namely, that the addition to the assessee's income was a deemed income and was not a direct or positive income ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee's wives and concubine added in the assessee's hands was a deemed income of the assessee and, therefore, it was not a direct or positive income of the asses...
Niranjana Mohanlal Kapadia and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom201
ORDER1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the dispute involved in these petitions is interrelated. The facts giving rise to filing of these two petitions are as follows:--2. Niranjana Mohanlal Kapadia, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2025 of 1983, is the owner of Chunilal Karsandas Building situated at 159/2, Cavel Cross Lane No. 6, Bombay 400 002. Room No. 3 in this building was requisitioned by Government of Bombay on August 31, 1957 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 for a public purpose, that is, for housing a victim of house collapse. On September 4, 1957 the premises were allotted in favour of Shankar Balwant Salunkhe, the father of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3030 of 1989. The allottee S. B. Salunkhe expired on February 27, 1978 and thereafter the room continued in occupation of his son Popat. Landlord Kapadia filed Writ Petition No. 2025 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baker Mercer India P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Bom)297; [1992]196ITR667(Bom)
MRS. Sujata V. Manohar J.1. At the instance of the Department, the following questions are sought to be raised under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of directing the Tribunal to refer these question to us :'1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the provisions of section 263 were not correctly invoked in this case ?2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, were not correctly applied to the facts of this case and that no adjustments to the cost of the plant and machinery on account of exchange fluctuations is called for the purposes of allowing depreciation under section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »