Mumbai Court December 1991 Judgments

Rana Sidram Jangi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR56; (1992)94BOMLR893

B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. An application was received in this Court from the petitioners regarding some ill-treatment meted out to them by the jail authorities. Shri Patil was appointed amicus curiae for the petitioners. He has filed Regular Petition. His main grievance is that the scale of ration fixed for individual prisoners is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the requirement of each individual prisoner is not taken into consideration, but the prisoners are supplied food on the basis of general scale fixed which, according to him, is in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The second ground of challenge is that there is no machinery prescribed to consider the grievance of individual prisoner regarding insufficient quantity of food which may be supplied to him as per scale fixed. 3. There are Affidavits filed on behalf of respondents by Senior Jailor as well as by Under Secretary (Law), Home Department, Mantralaya, Bom...

Sheshrao Chindhugir Giri Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR618

H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 28-11-1987 in Sessions Case No. 146 of 87 convicting him of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the I.P.C.) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly the facts are that the deceased in the instant case viz. Indira Sheshrao Giri was working as a Staff Nurse in the Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur. Although she has stated in her dying declaration that she was the wife of the accused Sheshrao Giri, the evidence on record creates a doubt whether she was married to him or not. It appears from the prosecution case that she was earlier married to one Shionath Choudhari from whom she had one minor son by name Vishal (since deceased) and one minor daughter by name Vaishali (P.W. 1). The said Shionath Choudhari, however, had left her and his whereabouts were not known. The evidence on reco...

Chemosyn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This Special Bench of the Tribunal has been constituted to decide the following question : " Whether the expenses in the nature of free samples distributed by a pharmaceutical company to the members of the medical profession are to be regarded as expenses on 'advertisement, publicity and sales promotion ' within the meaning of Section 37(3A)/(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. It is the principal question in the appeal of the appellant-assessee and those of the interveners.3. Briefly stated, the business of the assessee is to manufacture and sell medicines. In the course of that business, they distribute samples of their products free of charge to doctors through their representatives who record in certain forms information regarding their use by the doctor and his experience in that regard.4. The Income-tax Officer made a partial disallowance of the expenditure under Section 37(3A) and 3(B) in respect of these samples claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...

Kakkovayal Kuhbi Hamja Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR509; 1993CriLJ1078

H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition his order of detention issued by the Secretary, (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'). 2. The facts leading to the detention of the petitioner are that on 13-6-1990, the petitioner who came to Bombay from Dubai by Air India Flight No. AI-732 was intercepted by the Customs Officers at counter No. 3, Baggage Arrival Hall, Modula II of Sahar Airport, Bombay. The petitioner had three bags with him, two Zipper bags one of maroon colour and another of blue-yellow colour and one shopping bag. On search of his baggage, the officers recovered eight gold pieces totally weighing 3240 gms. valued at Rs. 6,90,800/- I.M.V. and Rs. 10,58,180/- L.M.V. Out of these eight gold pieces, seven gold pieces were inside the zipper bag in the form ...

Vijay Prataprai Mehta Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(59)ELT382(Bom)

Kapadia, J.1. The question which arises for our consideration in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether an exemption notification issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Excise Act') giving certain benefits of exemption to the assessee under Excise Act stands automatically extended to imports under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. For deciding the above question a few facts are briefly required to be stated :- (a) On 1st July 1982, the petitioner herein entered into a contract with the foreign seller for import of copper scrap and waste purporting to be used in the manufacture of copper oxychloride. (b) On 16th July 1982, Letter of Credit was opened by the Bank of the petitioner. (c) On 24th August 1982 material was shipped and the Bill of Landing was received. (d) On 13th September 1982 Bill of Entry was filed with the Customs Authorities by the petitioner who in the meantime had sold the said goods o...

Jaggat Singh Sons and Bros. and Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1993)(44)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the three appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original Nos. 10-44/84 dated 27.1.1989 of the Collector of Customs, Airport, Bombay, so far as it relates to holding the six consignments declared to contain "oxytctracyclinc HCL 1P6(S" imported by the appellants M/s.Kasinka Trading (Appeal No. 515/89) as liable to confiscation and ordering recovery of various amounts, as specified in the order lor each of the six consignments by enforcement of bank guarantee furnished along with ITC Bond, at the time to provisional release, as redemption fine, and also imposing personal penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s.Kasinka Trading, Rs. 3,000/- on M/s. Jaggat Singh Sons and Bros, (appeal No. 513/89) alleged to be the brokers, and Rs. 5,000/- on Mr.Sanlokh Singh (appeal No. 514/89) the then Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank.2. Vide the impugned order, penalties are also imposed on M/s. I.R.Sharma & Co., as also Mr H.S. Bhatia, but they do not appear to have preferred any appeal agai...

Kasinka Trading Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT400Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the three appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.S.10-44/84, dated 27-1-1989 of the Collector of Customs, Air Port, Bombay, so far as it relates to holding the six consignments declared to contain "Oxytetracycline HCL IP66" imported by the appellants M/s Kasinka Trading (Appeal No. 515/89) as liable to confiscation and ordering recovery of various amounts, as specified in the order for each of the six consignments by enforcement of bank guarantee furnished alongwith ITC Bond, at the time of provisional release, as redemption fine, and also imposing personal penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s.Kasinka Trading, Rs. 3000/- on M/s. Jaggat Singh Sons and Bros. (Appeal No. 513/89) alleged to be the brokers, and Rs. 5000/- on Mr. Santokh Singh (Appeal No. 514/89) the then Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank.2. Vide the impugned order, penalties are also imposed on M/s. I.R.Sharma & Co. as also Mr. H.S. Bhatia, but they do not appear to have preferred any appeal again...

Empire Estate Vs. Third Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1992)41ITD23(Mum.)

1. These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Bombay and relate to the assessment years 1977-78,1978-79 and 1979-80. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated together and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a partnership firm comprising of two partners, viz., Shri R.K. Mody and Miss M.K. Mody having equal shares (hereinafter called the "new firm").3. Shri R.K. Mody and Miss M.K. Mody earlier constituted a partnership with Mrs. Ellen K.K. Mody (hereinafter this is to be referred as "old firm"). Mrs. Ellen died on 12-1-1974. The duration of the partnership was "at will". On the demise of Mrs. Ellen K.K. Mody, the firm was said to have been dissolved. The fresh deed of partnership was executed on 18-1-1974. It was mentioned in the said deed that the earlier firm was dissolved on 12-1-1974.4. The business of the old firm was exhibition of cinema pictures at Bombay and Calcutta. The firm was owning theatre at Bombay b...

Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1992)43ITD237(Mum.)

1 to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.] 4. Ground No.3 in assessee's appeal is concerning investment allowance for machinery used for scientific research, the whole cost of which was allowed in the assessment year 1982-83 under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. The assessee's claim that proviso (d), to Section 32A(1) would apply when both the deductions are in one year and not in a case where whole of the actual cost was allowed as a deduction in two different previous years, namely, year ending on 30-6-1981 and 30-6-1982 was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He held that the actual cost of the machinery as at the end of the accounting period was the actual cost incurred till the end of the accounting year which was allowed in full while computing the income for assessment year 1982-83 and, therefore, proviso (d) to Section 32A(1) prohibited the deduction. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the IAC by observing that though the argument was plau...

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1992]196ITR406(Bom)

V.A. Mohta, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for deduction levied under section 220(2) of Rs. 6,03,168 interest levied under section 215 of Rs. 1,38,506 and interest levied under section 201(1A) of Rs. 66,590 was rightly rejected as not allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee was required to pay the following amounts as interest. Rs. 6,03,168 under section 220(2). Rs. 1,38,506 under section 215, and Rs. 66,590 under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. These amounts were claimed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner in first appeal and the Tribunal in second appeal, rejected the said claim as not allowable under section 37 and it is against the above basic u...