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.
Gopikumari Birla Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR318(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The questions read as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tax liability on the notional capital gains arising on the notional sale, as contemplated under section 7(1) of the We alth tax Act, 1957, of shares held by the assessee was deductible as debt under section 2(m) of the said Act while computing her net wealth for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 16,872 being the value of gold ornaments was includible in the 'net wealth' of the assessee for the assessement years 1967-68 to 1971-72 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the right of the assessee to receive Rs. 1,000 per month in terms of the provisions of the deed of settlement dated December 11, 1952, is a right to an annuity w...
Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia Vs. the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1991
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR425; 1991(1)MhLj1125
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner who is the wife of one Subhash Chandra Gadia challenges the order of detention dated 13th December, 1985 issued by respondent No. 1 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). Originally, the present petition was filed when the detention order was not served on the husband of the petitioner. When the petition came up for hearing, this Court (S.K. Desai and V.V. Kamat, JJ.) by order dated 27th June, 1989 directed the respondents to furnish the copy of the detention order and the grounds of detention to the petitioner. As the respondents had not complied with the said order, this Court by order dated 30th June, 1989 issued a notice to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against the respondents. Both these orders dated 27th June, 1989 and 30th June, 1989 were challenged in the Supreme court. The Supreme Court allowed both...
Kanhaylal Kundanmal Oswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR472; 1992CriLJ1039
1. This is an appeal under Section 12 read with Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant accused challenges his conviction under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The offence which he is held to have committed are for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, read with the provisions of Clauses 6 and 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Retail Dealers' Licensing Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order) and further read with the terms or conditions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of a licence issued to him as a retailer in kerosene. The appellant Kanhaylal Kundanmal Oswal obtained a retail dealer's licence under the order and this licence expired on 31st of December, 1982. On 18-1-1983 the accused made an application to the concerned authority for a renewal of this licence. The order renewing the licence was passed on 2-5-1983. 2. For the period between 31-12-1982 and 2-5-1983, the appellant accused had continued to conduct his busin...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bansilal Banechand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR1(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the orders of penalty for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, there appeared certain credits in the capital accounts as well as third parties' accounts in the books of the assessee. Some of these were added as the assessee's income from other sources. The additions were XXA confirmed by the Tribunal. 3. March 15, 1991 : These cash credits continued to appear as liabilities in the assessee's books in the subsequent years. While filing his returns of net wealth for assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69, the assessee disclosure his net wealth on th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)163; [1991]192ITR268(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court for decision under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The said questions read as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing that the deficiency under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1968-69, which was neither claimed by the assessee nor allowed in the assessment order for 1968-69, should be computed and allowed to be carried forward and set off in the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,70,000 is an allowable expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73 under the Income-tax Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that technical fees amoun...
Syed Akber Syed HussaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR166
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. It is alleged that the petitioner was indulging in extortion of money and valuable articles from the residents and shop keepers of the localities of CIDCO, HUDCO, GAOLIPURA of the city of Aurangabad and two offences were registered against him as Crime No. 68 of 89 under section 399, 402 of I.P.C. at the CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad and Crime No. 121 of 89 under section 379 I.P.C. at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. It was further alleged that the residents and shop keepers of the said localities living under the threats of assault and deterred by the behaviour of the petitioner, are not coming forward to depose against him and it is necessary that action under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 be taken against the petitioner. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 25-4-1990 after hearing petitioner, was pleased to pass order that the petitioner should remove himself from Aurangabad and Jalna district for a period of two ye...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. Beck and Co. (i) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Bom)227
T. D. SUGLA, J. :In this departmental reference relating to the assessees assessment for the asst. yr. 1971-72, the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following three questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the excess provision for taxation out of the Provision for taxation will satisfy the test of Other Reserves and in directing the Surtax Officer to include such excess provision for computation of the capital base ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,80,689 of the provision for proposed Dividend was includible in the capital computation, being 'Other Reserves' ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital base should not be reduced proportionately with reference to deductions allowed under Chapter VIA of the IT Act, ap...
Caltax Oil Refining (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR193(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These are cross references. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : At the instance of the Commissioner : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the inter-connecting roads and the road running along the boundary wall of the refinery premises of the assessee-company come within the scope of the word 'building' and as such are entitled to depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' At the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the alternative claim that the roads, etc., in the refinery plot be regarded as a plant for the purpose of sections 32 and 33 of the Income-tax Act even though no new facts were necessary for considering the claim (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.K. Kondke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR128(Bom); 1991(1)MhLj572
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its decision under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. This question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the activity of the assessee of producing cinematograph films is an 'industrial undertaking' for the purpose of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?' 2. During the previous year pertaining to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee started production of motion pictures in the Marathi language. The assessee claimed the benefit of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the said business was an 'industrial undertaking' within the meaning of the said expression used in section 80J. The Income-tax Officer refused to grant the said benefit to the assessee, as the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. May and Baker (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)168; [1991]192ITR239(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of the assessee in the matter of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, of Rs. 5,34,000 is an allowable revenue expenditure in the assessment of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year involved is 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1972. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, came into force some time in October, 1972. According to the assessee, it became liable to pay gratuity to its employees under the statute for the first time during the previous year. It made a provision of Rs. 8,65,000 in respect of its gratuity liability. The break-up of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »