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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Toshniwal Electrodes Manufacturing Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR209(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The only question of law referred to this court in this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1969-70 is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 47,207 paid by the assessee-company to Moellar under agreement dated July 1, 1966, was a permissible deduction ?' 2. Ordinarily, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Ciba of India Ltd., : [1968]69ITR692(SC) , which was followed by our court in the case of Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. V. CIT : [1987]163ITR606(Bom) , we would have straightaway answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee; more so, as the Supreme Court itself has taken a similar view in its later decision in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. V. CIT : [1989]177ITR377(SC) . We, however, find that, in the reference relating to another assessment year of this very assessee, two questions of law were referred to this court, one ...
Roshanally and Co. Vs. Janki Narayandas Mudnaney and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR322; (1991)93BOMLR864
A.V. Savant, J.1. The above chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs - M/s Roshanally & Co., in Suit No. 1085 of 1973 on 6th March, 1991 for setting aside the abatement which event had occurred on 26th December, 1976 pursuant to the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of death of the only defendant in the suit namely Brijrani Mudnaney who died on 26th September 1976. The period of 60 days for making the application for setting aside the abatement had expired on 26th February, 1977 i.e. to say 60 days after 26th December, 1976. Thus there is a delay of about 14 years in taking out the present chamber summons.2. By this chamber summons, the plaintiffs have prayed for the following principal reliefs :a) That the abatement of the above suit be set aside;b) That the plaintiffs be permitted to amend the plaint as per the schedule annexed hereto.c) That the delay, if any in taking out this chamber summons be condoned.Since the litigation has a chequered history, a few fa...
Gopal Thavardas Rajwani Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commissioner of Police, Thane ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR528; 1991CriLJ3200; 1991(1)MhLj840
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner herein is the detenu who was earlier detained under the National Security Act by an order dated 13th July 1990 issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner had challenged the said order of detention vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 936 of 1990. During the pendency of the said petition for final hearing, the State of Maharashtra passed an order on 14th January 1991 revoking the said order of detention of the petitioner detenu (vide Annexure 'A' to this petition). Before the detenu was released from detention, a fresh order of detention dated 15th January 1991 (vide Annexure 'B' to this petition) was issued by the 1st respondent and served upon the detenu in the jail. The grounds of the second order of detention are at Annexure 'D' to this petition. 2. The petitioner's earlier writ petition No. 936 of 1990 was allowed to be withdrawn on his request and he challenged the order of his redetection vide this Writ Petition. 3. Shri Shirish Gupte, learned Couns...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.L. Hendra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR565(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. When the application was called out for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, we requested Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, to take us through the order of the Tribunal and the relevant facts and material on record to satisfy ourselves as to whether the questions really required consideration. Both the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, it is seen, accepted the assessee's explanation for his inability to pay the self-assessment tax and treating the same to be reasonable and sufficient explanation. The explanation was that he was not able to pay the tax on account of financial stringency caused primarily on account of the fact that his property in the shape of open land with some structure worth about Rs. 1 crore was acquired by the Government in the year 1971. However, the award was given on August 29, 1986, only, when an amount of Rs. 38,34,228 was awarded as compensation. As soon as the award was pa...
irwIn Almeida and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Bom)191; [1992]197ITR609(Bom)
M.L. Pendse J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Taleyarkhan on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Batia on behalf of respondent No. 4 waive service. 3. Heard counsel. 4. By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Appropriate Authority, Bombay, and communicated to the petitioners by letter dated December 18, 1990. A copy of the letter is annexed as exhibit 'E' to the petition. The facts giving rise to the passing of the order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. 5. The petitioners are owners of immovable property bearing City Survey Nos. A/613, 614, 615 and 616 admeasuring about 15812.71 sq.meters situate at Chinchpokli Road, Bandra (West), Bombay. The petitioners are also owners of property bearing House No. 7 and Houses Nos. 5 and 5A. The petitioners had entered into an agree...
Sultanali Cassamali Jairajbhoy Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR37(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. Mr. Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, has pointed out that though there are as many as eleven questions raised by the assessee as questions of law, the real questions are only three. According to him, questions Nos. 1 to 4 relate to the direct assessment on the beneficiaries in terms of section 21(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Questions Nos. 5 and 6, he stated, have become infructuous in view of the Tribunal's order on the assessee's Miscellaneous Application No. 208 (Bom) 87. Questions Nos. 7 to 11, he stated, pertain to the valuation of the assessee's share in the property owned jointly by him along with three other co-owners. 2. As regards questions Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Jetley invited our attention to the provisions of section 21(2) which leave no scope for doubt that it was open to the Wealth-tax Officer to assess the beneficiaries directly. Regarding questions Nos. 7 to 11, he stated that compensation of Rs. 9,76,490 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Asphalt Products and Construct ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Bom)112
T. D. SUGLA, J. :Mr. Dastur, the learned counsel for the assessee, points out that in its impugned order dt. 26th February, 1988 the Tribunal while rejecting the Departments application for reference had relied on its earlier order in the assessees own case for the asst. yr. 1981-82. In its order for the year the Tribunal had referred to the opinion dt. 16th February, 1984 given by the Ministry of Law, Department of Legal Affairs, on reference made by the CBDT. According to him, no referable question could, therefore, be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the instructions or circulars issued by the Board were binding on the Departmental authorities.2. Mr. Jetly, the learned counsel for the Revenue, on the hand, relied on our Courts judgment in the case of CIT vs . Oricon Pvt. Ltd. : [1989]176ITR407(Bom) , where, referring to a number of other decisions, it was held, in the context of the definition of 'industrial company', that a construction company was not an industria...
G.N. Deshpande Vs. Ishwaribai U. Ahuja and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2665
1. This appeal by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Marine & Preventive Wing challenges the acquittal of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 upon a charge of commission of an offence of possession of undeclared primary gold in contravention of the provisions of S. 8(1)(i) of the Gold Control Act read with S. 85(1)(ii)(a) thereof. 2. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Ishwaribai wife of Udhhavdas Ahuja and Gopaldas Udhhavdas Ahuja are respectively the widow and the son of one Udhavdas Kewalram Ahuja who died sometime in the year 1973. Udhavdas's grand mother was one Bhojibai. She died in the year 1951. The respondent accused No. 2 Gopaldas was born in Feb. 1950. His mother Gopibai died within three or four days after the delivery. In July 1950 Udhavdas married a second time, this time to the present accused No. 1 Ishwaribai. It is also not in dispute that from this second wife Ishwaribai, a female issue was born to Udhhavdas, her name being Mohini. Mohini was married sometime in May 1974. This mar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Burroughs Welcome and Co. (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR712(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the excess provision for taxation over and above the actual tax liability constituted a 'reserve' and was includible in capital computation ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Surtax Officer to include in the computation of capital for the three years the entire balance in the general reserve account as standing on the first day of accounting year without therefrom the dividend declared in the relevant previous year ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that in view of our court's judgment in CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. : [1986]160ITR700(Bom) and CIT v. Pfize...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Machinery Manufacturers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Bom)186; [1991]191ITR483(Bom)
D.K. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the premium of Rs. 4,50,000 paid by the assessee-company to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation under the agreement dated July 6 22, 1966, for temporary water supply connection was expenditure of a revenue nature (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contribution of Rs. 1,56,800 paid by the assessee-company to the Maharashtra Housing Board under the aforesaid scheme towards the building of houses for its employees was expenditure of a revenue nature ?' 2. Relevant facts pertaining to question No. 1 are us under :The assessment year is 1967-68. The assessee-company manufactured textile machinery, viz., ring frames, carding engines and looms. On July 22, 1966, an agreement was arrived at between the assessee-company and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »