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.
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR359(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. This is the assessee's reference. The assessment year involved is 1967-68. The 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 income of Rs. 12,38,387 being interest received on loans and advances is taxable in law as income from business as contended by the assessee or as income from other sources as contended by the Income-tax Department ?' 2. It is pertinent to mention that a similar issue had arisen in the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1966-67. The tribunal had held that the interest received by the assessee on loans and advances was taxable as the assessee's income from other sources and not as business income. The said order of the tribunal was not challenged by way of reference. 3. In the year under reference, the Tribunal has dealt with this question in paragraph 4 of its appellate order. Besi...
Dilipkumar Tarachand Gandhi and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR59
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the convictions and sentences awarded on 26-12-1990 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 190 of 1986 on his file. The present appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in that case, were convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Each of them was also convicted of an offence punishable under section 201 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Original accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted in the case.2. This appeal was initially filed before the Nagpur Bench of this High ...
Abdul Nasir Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR154
V.A. Mohta, J.1. We have heard Shri Karmali, learned Counsel for the-petitioner detenu and Shri Habibuddin Ahamad, learned Counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. We do not see any substance in this second challenge to the order of 'detention' and 'continued detention' dated April 26, 1990 under Section 3(1) read with Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (the Act) for the reasons that follow:2. The detailed backdrop against which the impugned order was made is set out in the order passed by a Division Bench at Bombay in Abdul Nasir Khan v. L. Hmingliana (1990) Cr.W.P. No. 537 of 1990 while disposing of the first challenge. Hence we are refraining from repeating the same over again here. After hearing exhaustive submission of Shri Ram Jethmalani, then learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said petition came to be dismissed. In this second round of challenge four grounds not urged before are r...