Mumbai Court March 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.
Mir Faizali Shaheen Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR226; 1992CriLJ1034; 1992(1)MhLj598
1. The appellant in this case has appealed against the conviction by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 42 of 1990. It is unnecessary to refer to the several charges framed against the appellant by the trial Court except in passing to mention that the original charges came to be amended more than once, the last time being during the evidence of the complainant. The learned Special Judge at that stage added a 6th charge which virtually encompasses all the incidents that are the subject matter of the present prosecution. It appears that having regard to the peculiar nature of the facts and considering that the accused was not a public servant, that the learned Special Judge found it more appropriate to frame a composite charge under S. 213, I.P.C. I am informed at the Bar, as is evident from the record, that some of the witnesses were recalled pursuant to the amendment to the charge. 2. Mrs. Shenoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not m...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Nita Mahesh Bhogilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR414(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Tribunal has referred to this court two questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The question are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liabilities as shown in the balance-sheet of Batliboi and Co. P. Ltd., as on March 31, 1971/March 31, 1973, should be further reduced by sums of Rs. 29,28,504 and Rs. 35,01,123 while determining the market value of the unquoted shares of the said company in terms of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision made for section 23A liability for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64 and for the income-tax liability for the assessment year 1970-71 constituted the market value of unquoted equity shares of the company in terms of rule 1D o...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R.M. Sukhadvala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR389(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference, the Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the shares of Daruwala Brothers Pvt. Ltd., held by the deceased at the time of his death should be valued in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, on the basis only of its published balance-sheet as on June 30, 1969 ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court's judgment in the case of Jehangir Mahomedali Chagla v. M. V. Subrahmanian, Addl. First Asst. CED : [1985]155ITR637(Bom) , it has to be held that the value of unquoted shares of a company could be valued in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, for the purpose of estate duty also. The only dispute that remains and which is involved in the question is as to the balance-sheet to be taken into account for the purpose. According to the accoun...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. S.R. Wadhelwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR480(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for the opinion of this court. That question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that premia amounting to Rs. 24,208 paid by the deceased within a period of two years before his death in respect of a policy taken by him under the Married Women's Property Act, 1874, are not to be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under the provisions of section 9 read with section 27 and section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?' 2. In this case, insurance policies were taken out under the Married Women's Property Act by the deceased. With computing the value of the principal estate of the deceased, the Assistant Controller included a sum of Rs. 24,208 which represented the premia paid by the deceased in respect of the policies within two years before the death of the deceased. Th...
Shri Harshavardhan B. Doshi Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR44; [1991]192ITR469(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. At the instance of the accountable person, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question referred are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant's claim for excluding the surrender value of the policy under the Married Women's Property Act was rightly rejected (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the surrender value of the said policy was rightly aggregated with the other property passing on the death of the deceased (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant's claim for deducting the amount payable as estate duty in computing the value of the principles estate was rightly rejected ?' 2. The reference has been made at the instance of the accountable person in respect of the estate left by one, Mrs. Leelabai B. Doshi, who died on June 6, 1969. The husband of the decease...
Prabhakar Govind Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR17; 1991(1)MhLj1051
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case is an ex-Government servant. He had joined Government service as a surveyor in the Land Records Department in the year 1954 and in the year 1978, he was promoted to the post of Sheristedar in the City Survey Office III, Bombay Suburban District, Santacruz, Bombay. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement in April 1980 after having put in a total period of 24 years of service. There is no dispute about the fact that competent authority of the Government by order dated 29-4-1980 permitted the petitioner to retire from service. It appears that right upto the year 1984, the finalisation of the petitioners pension was not completed. On 6-7-1984, the Anti-corruption authorities had raided the petitioner's residence and it is the petitioner's case that nothing incriminating was found and that he was informed, that there was certain investigations which were being carried on in relation to issue of F.S.I. by some builders and that there was ...
State Vs. Mehtab Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR130
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is a reference under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur for a decision on the following question of law:Whether it is open for the Sessions Court to quash the order of the commitment and send the proceeding back for strict compliance of the provisions of Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate when it finds that without complying the provisions of the said section a case instituted otherwise than on police report is committed to the Court of Sessions?2. A private complaint disclosing commission of offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on March 25, 1985. It had a list of 11 witnesses. One out of the four complainants was examined on November 27, 1985, two witnesses were examined on December 19, 1985 and one on January 16, 1986. The complainants did not close their case, but the learned. CJM chose to issue proce...
K.K. Dyeing and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cce and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC521(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The 1st petitioners carry on business as processors on job basis of man-made fabrics. They preferred refund applications for excise duty paid twice over under mistake of law. There were seven claims (which are particularised in Exhibit-A to the petition) aggregating to Rs. 43,744.14. The refund applications were made on the basis that goods upon which excise duty had already been paid had been returned for remaking, refining or redefining and that when these goods, as remade, left the factory excise duty was paid thereon once again. The refund applications having been made after the expiry of the period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the petitioners also presented an application to the Central Board of Excise & Customs for relaxation of the period of limitation under the applicable rule, Rule 173L(4), of the Central Excise Rules. This application was refused on 17th December 1985 on the ground that the provisions of Section 11B ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)114; [1991]192ITR357(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. These cross-references relate to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. BY its order dated March 15, 1977, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal had referred to this court the following two questions of law, one each at the instance of the Department and the assessee : 2. R.A. Nos. 354 and 355/ (PN) of 1975-76 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the amount set apart for engine inspection and warranty and technical fees are not in the nature of a reserve but are current liabilities and provisions and, therefore, are not to be included in the computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 3. R.A. Nos. 359, 360 and 361/(PN) of 1975-76 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the general reserve as on the 1 st day of the accountin...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shakuntala Kantilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR56(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions read thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount of Rs. 35,504 paid by the assessee to M/s. Raida and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., is deductible in computing the capital gains arising on sale of the land under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was rightly allowed by the Tribunal to exercise the option of substituting the fair market value of the plot of land as on January 1, 1954 for the actual cost thereof as contemplated under section 55(2), the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the capital gains arising on sale of plot under section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee had purchased a plot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »