Mumbai Court February 1991 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. National Organic Chemical Industries Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR180(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 and 1971-72, the only question that has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the roadways connecting the various plants with one another within the factory premises as 'plant' entitled to depreciation and development rebate under the Income-tax Act ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by a number of decisions of our court, the last one being CIT v. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. : [1990]182ITR130(Bom) . Following the aforesaid judgment, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, but direct the Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the roadways connecting the plants with one another within the factory premises as 'building' and not as 'plant'.3. No order as to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Carbon India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)158; [1991]190ITR622(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is a reference by the Department. The assessee is a company and the proceedings relate to its assessment for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. By an order under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of technical know-how which was paid for by the assessee by way of shares in the assessee-company is includible in the capital for the purpose of computation of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under rule 19A(2), clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for 1970-71 and 1971-72 assessement years (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief at 8% under section 80-I on the interest income of Rs. 7,07,390 for the assessement year 1971-72 (3...
D.S. Joshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR302(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. This is an assessee's reference relating to his assessment for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1970-71. The assessee, it is common ground, has been purchasing new machinery year after year on which he claimed and was allowed development rebate as under : Assessment year Amount allowedRs.1964-65 23,7171965-66 41,6831965-67 5,7701967-68 28,0661968-69 49,4881969-70 2,2651970-71 2,835 2. By a deed of partnership dated January 1, 1970, he converted his business into a partnership and contributed the business hitherto run by him, as proprietor by way of his capital contribution. Thereafter, his entire business, including the assets on which development rebate was allowed to him from year to year, became the property of the partnership firm in which he was also a partners. By applying the provisions of section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer withdrew the development rebate allowed to him in the earlier years under section 34(3)(b) holding that it was a c...
Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR209(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following three 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 Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the interest of Rs. 70,875 under section 214 on the advance payment of tax of Rs. 3,00,000 made on March 28, 1969 is concerned 2. Whether the order under section 154 passed by the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the interest of Rs. 70,875 was valid in law, having regard to the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was paid as advance tax and was accepted as such by the Income-tax Officer while making the original assessments 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee Rs. 3,00,000 paid on March 28, 1969 ?' 2. It is evident that the main question involved herein is whether an amount paid towards advance tax after the due date but before the end of the financial y...
Catholic Association of Bombay and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR344
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition raises issues of considerable seriousness which are also of immense public importance. It concerns the sanctity that is required to be attached to the right of privacy and the aspect of confidentiality that must be observed by public authorities entrusted with investigations, with particular accent on cases relating to women. Briefly stated, it has been pointed out to this Court that two nuns, who deserved general admiration for the fact that they were looking after a group of 20 homeless boys at an institution called 'Sneh Sadan' at Jogeshwari, were found dead on the morning of 16-11-1990 with multiple stab injuries on their bodies. The institution functioned from a small house where the conditions were so austere that robbery appeared to be the least of the likely causes for the incident. The Police Authorities took charge of the bodies and sent the same for post--mortem examination in normal course. On 18-11-1990, the incident was repo...
Balasaheb Kushaba Kadam and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR565; (1991)93BOMLR988
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. All these petitions raise common questions of fact and law are, therefore, decided and disposed by this common judgment.2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 332 of 1990 filed by Balasaheb Kushaba Kadam challenges order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar, in Externment Proceeding No. 22/88 directing petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000/- each for ensuring good behaviour for a period of two years and dismissal of appeal by the State Government against the said order. He was served with a notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, pointing out that the activities of the petitioner in Deolali Pravara habitation and around it have caused alarm, danger and harm and 4 criminal cases have been filed against him and the petitioner is trying to create communal tension by instigating Hindus and Muslims and therefore, he should show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, N...
Dilawar Ambir Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR499
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The appellant Dilawar Ambir Pathan was tried for commission of offence under section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the trial Court under section 366 of the I.P.C. sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default further R.I. for 6 months. This appeal takes exception both to the conviction and the sentence as awarded. Ajamuddin Daudkhan Kokane P.W. 1 and Sahirabai P.W. 2 are husband and wife. They were married in the year 1959 and at the time of this incident of 6th September, 1982, they had as many as 9 children, seven of them daughters and two sons. The person involved as the kidnapped one in this case is the daughter Sahida, the third eldest amongst the children. The prosecution case is that she was born on 1-6-1966 and therefore, at the time of this incident i.e. on 6th of September, 1982, she was a minor female in the lawful guardianship and keeping of her father Ajamuddin Daudkhan Kokane. Ajamuddin ...
Kanak Vinod Mehta Vs. Vinod Dulerai Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Bom337; 1991(2)BomCR170; (1991)93BOMLR409; I(1992)DMC403; 1991(1)MhLj1064
ORDERBharucha, J.1. A difference having arisen between the views of two learned single Judges of this Court in respect of the interpretation to be placed upon the Family Courts Act, 1984, (hereinafter called 'the said Act'), the following question has been referred for decision to the Division Bench :--'Whether, on the plaint as it stands, it is the Family Court which has the jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of the Family Courts Act and, therefore, on the establishment of the Family Court this Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of clause (a) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and the suit stands transferred to such Family Court by virtue of clause (c) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.'2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant, her husband, and has sought (a) a declaration that she is entitled to an undivided right, title and interest in the matrimonial home and to reside therein; (b) a declaration that she is en...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Bom)182; [1991]191ITR168(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's surtax assessment for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 19,97,065 transferred to the 'General Reserve No. I' account was includible in the capital computation base of the assessee-company within the meaning of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for each of the accounting periods relevant to the assessement years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?' 2. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 19,97,065 involved herein represents the amount of depreciation actually allowed but not debited in the books of account originally and that this amount was transferred to the general reserve account in the year 1969-70. There is also no dispute th...
Mrs. K. Vs. Mr. V.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR66
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. A difference having arisen between the views of two learned single judges of this Court in respect of the interpretation to be placed upon the Family Courts Act, 1984, (hereinafter called 'the said Act'), the following question has been referred for decision to the Division Bench:Whether, on the plaint as it stands, it is the Family Court which has the jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of the Family Courts Act and therefore, on the establishment of the Family Court this Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of Clause (a) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and the suit stands transferred to such Family Court by virtue of Clause (c) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.?2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant, her husband, and has sought (a) a declaration that she is entitled to an undivided right, title and interest in the matrimonial home and to reside therein; (b) a declaration that she is entitle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »