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.
industrial Consulting Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR346(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year involved are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. By its order dated February 3, 1976, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80MM, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the relief admissible to the assessee under that section is required to be restricted to the net income and not with reference to the actual amount of income by way of consulting fees received. Amounting to Rs. 3,27,350 (assessment year 1972-73), Rs. 4,99,170 (assessment year 1973-74) and Rs. 67,448 (assessment year 1974-75) ?' 2. It is stated by Shri Dilip Dwarkadas, learned counsel for the assessee, that the issue before the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]155ITR1...
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR510(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. This is an assessee's reference. The assessment years involved are 1966-67 to 1969-70. 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 circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 280ZB, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154 and in upholding the action of the Income-tax Officer in taking back the benefit of tax credit certificates originally granted in respect of the following items of receipts : (a) Profits on sale of assets. (b) Interest on bank deposits. (c) Rent received. (d) Other Interest 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee-company was wholly engaged in the manufacture and production of biscuits and confectionery, the Tribunal erred in law i...
Union of India Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC1; 1991(55)ELT15(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated July 27, 1988 delivered by Mrs. Justice Manohar and the question for determination is whether the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, was justified in loading amount by 1.5% on the invoice value of CKD components of the engines imported by Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mahindra') by exercising powers under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The facts which gave rise to the passing on the order are as follows : 2. Mahindra Limited are a public Company carrying on business amongst others of manufacture of different types of automobile vehicles. The vehicles the manufactured at their factories situated at Kandivali and Ghatkoper in Bombay and at Igatpuri and Nasik. On November 6, 1979, Mahindra entered into a technical know-how agreement with M/s. Automobile Peugeot, a French Company. The technical know-ho...
Modilal Kalaramji JaIn Vs. Lakshmi Modilal Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Bom440; 1991(2)BomCR501; (1991)93BOMLR854; I(1993)DMC405; 1991(1)MhLj754
1. This appeal raises a question as to whether a spouse having failed to secure a matrimonial relief is entitled to a claim of permanent alimony under subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955').2. The trial Judge, in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 rejected the claim of the restitution of conjugal rights. However, the learned Judge by the impugned order dated 27-1-1988 granted permanent alimony in favour of the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife did not question the correctness or legality of the order refusing to grant her restitution. However, the appellant-husband by instant appeal, challenged the order granting permanent alimony in favour of the respondent-wife.3. This Court on 24-2-1988 admitted the appeal as presented by the husband. The main submission as canvassed in the instant appeal is that the term 'any decree' as incorporated under sub-section (1) of Section ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mazagaon Dock Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR460(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion : 2. Question in respect of all the three assessment years : '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 deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the Frigate Project for the three years ?' 3. Question relating to assessment year 1970-71 only : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the concrete walls on three sides built after necessary excavation also constitute part of the plant in Kasara Basin Wet Dock and the assessee is entitled to depreciation and development rebate on the expenditure incurred on excavation of Rs. 77,80,000 and masonr...
Pyarelal Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ273Bom; 1991(1)MhLj1408
M.M. Qazi, J. 1. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. I Municipal Council, Ramtek as Safai Mazdoor (Sweeper) some time in the year 1969. By the end of 1984 the post of Safai Jamadar fell vacant and the petitioner was appointed in that post vide order dated 13.12.1984 (Annexure-A) for a period of three months on an experimental basis. It was clarified that if his services were found satisfactory, he would be deemed to be fit for the post of Safai Jamadar and he would be paid the salary of Safai Jamadar. In fact, there were no complaints against his work till he was reverted as Safai Mazdoor vide order, dated 30.7.1985, which was received by the petitioner on 31.7.1985. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Safai Jamadar in place of the petitioner.2. The petitioner challenged the order of his reversion by filing a complaint under Sections 5, 28, 30 read with Sections 26, 27 and under Items 5, 7 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Pr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metropolitan Springs (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR288(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department is : '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 deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act in respect of the manufacture by it of axle shafts, torsion bars and coil springs ?' 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of springs mainly used in the automobile industry. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1968-69 for which the previous year is the calendar year 1967. The assessee set up a project for the production of axle shafts and torsion bars during the earlier previous year. For this purpose, it imported machinery worth about Rs. 10 lakhs. However, in the absence of spine-milling and hobbling machines, it was initially doing forging only and was getting the forges drilled, splinted and cut elsewhere on job work. S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)142; [1991]191ITR403(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the decision of 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 Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the amount received by it from the State Development Corporation of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under section 80-O with reference to the gross amount of Rs. 2,43,813 and not with reference to the net amount after deduction of Rs.1,72,438 being the expenses relevant thereto ?' The relevant facts are as under : (a) The reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72. The corresponding previous year ended on September 30, 1970. (b) On July 16, 1970, the assessee entered i...
Chiranjilal Shrilal and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Bom)163; [1991]191ITR384(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is the assessee' reference. The assessee are trustees of a trust. The assessment year involved is 1971-72. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of the trust deed dated June 30, 1962, the assessee were liable to pay tax on 75 per cent. of its total income at the maximum rate of 65 per cent. as provided by section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. One Shri Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka settled some of his properties on trust by an indenture dated June 30, 1962. The indenture, inter alia, provided that the trust income shall be accumulated for 18 years. Thereafter, 25% of the trust fund along with its accumulations will be spent on charity as mentioned in clause 4 of the indenture and the remaining 75% will be handed over to the wife or widow of the settlo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR267(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, 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 and on a proper construction of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act. 1961, and/or the relevant circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the subject, the commission, car allowance and bonus paid by the assessee to its employees were not to be treated as perquisites for the purposes of the said section ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Indokem Private Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) , the question is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. 3. No order as to costs. ...