Mumbai Court August 1990 Judgments

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C.M. Correa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]192ITR184(Bom)

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J.1. The following two question are referred to us for determination under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the cash system of accounting adopted by the assessee, the outstanding fees remaining unrecovered as on the valuation date constitute the net wealth of the assessee as on such date ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in affirmative, whether the amount to be included in the net wealth would be the gross outstanding fees or the present discounted value thereof as reduced by the outstanding liabilities as on the valuation date '2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is an accepted positi on that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju, : [1985]152ITR454(SC) , which has been followed by out High Court in the case of CWT v. V. M. Shah : [1988]170ITR17(Bom) , question No. (1) has to be answered in the ...

Dey Paper Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]187ITR624(Bom)

T.D.Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated October 28, 1986, and dated June 23, 1987, passed by respondent No. 1, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.2. The Council of Industrial Research, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was interested in purchasing a paper plant for its Regional Research Laboratory, Hyderabad (for short 'the purchaser'). The petitioner-company was in a position to supply that plant. On March 9, 1981, the purchaser and the petitioner entered into an agreement. The agreement, inter alia, provided that the petitioner shall, in addition to four complete units, namely, mould, press part, drying and cutting units, make available to the purchaser complete data, design, drawing and instructions in connection with therewith and also assist by supervising and rendering services in connection the installation of the four u...

J. Rasiklal and Co. Vs. G.K. Mishra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]188ITR591(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a dissolved partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the two orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay (both dated August 18, 1987), under sections 264 and 273A of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessment of the petitioner-company for the assessment year 1983-84 was completed on February 1, 1985. The petitioner, it is stated, had filed its return originally on November 2, 1983. It filed revised return on July 16, 1984. In the revised turn, an additional income of Rs. 3,16,000 was shown. Being of the view that the penal provision of section 271(1)(c) were attracted, the Income-tax Officer recorded a finding to the effect and, after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard imposed, by order dated December 11, 1985, a penalty of Rs. 3,12,840 under section 271(1)(c), being 150% of the amount of tax sought to be evade. The petition did...

Apar Private Limited Vs. D.K. Karnik and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR510

D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an appeal by the former landlords of premises requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 against the order of fixation of reasonable compensation to be paid to them annually.2. The premises in question are Flats Nos. 9-A and 10-A (two flats) in the Sunita building near Hangings Garden, Bombay 400 006. The buildings of which the two flats were part, belongs to a co-operative housing society. The area of the premises is 4700 sq. metres. By an order dated 23rd July, 1976, the respondent No. 2 requisitioned these premises on the ground that they were so liable to be requisitioned for the reason that these had not been occupied for use over a period of six months after the construction. The requisition was made for the Counsel General, Consulate General of United Republic of Egypt i.e. a Government allottee. Possession was also taken on the same day. On 13th October, 1977 the landlords' Petition No. 1084 of 1976 came to be allowed and the order of r...

Auto Skills @ Renuka Enterprises Vs. Yuva Lekhak Abhiyan

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

G.G. Loney, President: (1) In this appeal the Opposite Party has challenged the order of District Forum, Nagpur directing it to return the prices of defective furniture. Complainant is an institution and had purchased a wooden sofa-set from appellant priced at Rs. 4,800/-. Appellant has a shop at Nagpur styled as 'Renuka Enterprise'. Appellant passed a receipt for Rs. 4,800/- having received the price of sofa-set from complainant. (2) According to complainant the appellant represented at the time of sale that the sofaset would be made of Assam Teak, Tala Foam and Reliance Acrylic furnishing fabric and guaranteed about its quality and durability for a period of 2 years. But after taking its delivery the complainant discovered that the wood of the sofa-set was rotten and infested with termites and insects. Complainant therefore approached the appellant several times and informed the defects noticed by him in the sofa-set. Appellant agreed to remove the alleged defects and took back the s...

Jakir Ibrahim Khan and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR648; 1991CriLJ527

Vaidya, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Order dated 27-4-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1987 on his file. Appeal No. 2 of 1988 is preferred by original accused No. 1 - Jakir Ibrahim Khan and Appeal No. 8 of 1988 is preferred by original accused No. 7 Suresh Appa Thorath. Original accused Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by the prosecution.2. Original accused Nos. 1 and 7 were convicted for the offences punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for the first and second mentioned offences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and for the third mentioned offence, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the accused were ...

Sharad Bhiku Marchande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR633; 1991CriLJ2109

Kurdukar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition principally for two reliefs viz. (1) the order passed by respondent No. 3 refusing furlough to the petitioner be quashed and set aside and (2) an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing the second respondent to release the petitioner on furlough.2. The present petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, Arthur Road, Bombay where the petitioner is presently detained. The third respondent is the sanctioning authority vested with the power to grant furlough to the convicted prisoners under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.)3. In order to appreciate rival contention, we may summarise the facts of the present case as under :The petitioner was tried in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1980 in the Sessions Court at Bombay for an offenc...

Master Sanjeev Ramchand and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]186ITR746(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale on July 23, 1986, with one Shri Ramchand Hirasingh for the purchase of office premises No. 201-B in the Neelkanth Niranjan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Bombay, for a sum of Rs. 1,66,000. The transferor and the transferees filed a copy of the agreement for sale along with Form No. 37EE on August 14, 1986, in the office of the Competent Authority as required under rule 48DD and Section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Transfer form was filed with the society on July 23, 1986, itself on which day an application for membership was also filed. Another application was made to the society for the transfer of the premises in favour of the petitioners on August 11, 1986. Before the premises were transferred in favour of the petitioners, the Income-tax Officer served notice dated December 29, 1986, issued under Section 226(3) on the society requiring it not to transfer the shares to Hirasingh Ramchand in the societ...

Mrs. Nita Tushar Tanna Vs. A. B. Joshi, Fifth Income-tax Officer, and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]187ITR603(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated August 3, 1988, and August 23, 1988, for the assessment year 1982-83. Notice dated August 3, 1833, was stated to have been received on August 23, 1988, whereas the notice dated August 23, 1988, in identical terms was stated to have been recived on October 26, 1988. The petitioner has expressed her surprise on it and, in the absence of an affidavit-in-reply, it is still not clear how and in what circumstances the two notices under section 148 were issued in the course of 20 days for the same assessment year.2. Averments are made in the petition that notice under section 148 were issued by the Income-tax Officer with a view to withdraw relief granted to the petitioner under section 35CCA in respect of a sum of Rs. 70,000 donated by the petitioner to Seva Charitable Trust even though the notification issued by the Central Bo...

Colour Cartons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT129Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The learned advocate Shri Pun-wani for the applicants has prayed for stay of the impugned order dated 8-3-1990. The impugned order, being short, is reproduced below : "Please refer to your letter No. NIL, dated 3-8-1989 on the above subject. I am directed to inform you that the Collector Central Excise, Bombay-Ill has rejected your request under Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for sending semi-finished printed cartons for further process, as the processes proposed to be carried out at the job workers' [premises] amount to manufacture.2. The learned advocate has pointed that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the applicants' plea for availing the facility under Rule 56B, not only without giving any hearing but also without giving any reasons as to why the processing undertaken by the job workers outside amounts to 'manufacture'. He, therefore, urges that the impugned order is prima facie bad in law and it deserves to be set aside. He has also stated that prior to th...