Mumbai Court April 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.
Sham Sunder Srivastava Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1993LC563(Bombay); 1991(55)ELT174(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. We are concerned in this writ petition with two bonds given by the petitioner as security for performance of his obligations under the Export Promotion Scheme, which was, at the relevant time, in force. 2. We shall deal with the bond in the sum of Rs. 32,550/- first. That bond was issued at the petitioner's instance by the Mercantile Bank Ltd. on 23rd December, 1967. By the letter dated 30th August 1969, the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports that, since he had failed to fulfill the export obligation undertaken by him against the said bond, his guarantor bank had been directed to forfeit the guarantee amount and forward the receipted challan, which had since been received. The said bond was, therefore, treated as cancelled. That this was done is indicated by a certificate dated 16th April 1982 addressed by the petitioner's bankers, Mercantile Bank Ltd., to the petitioner. The certificate states that the said bond had been forfeited...
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Bom)8; [1991]189ITR660(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, in the matter of computation of capital for the purposes of deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 is entitled to include therein the loans taken by it from the banks and its unsecured borrowings from various persons ?'2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. V. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , the question is required to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered.3. It is pertinent to mention that by our order of this...
Union of India (Uoi) Through Officer Commanding of 52 Maharashtra Bri. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ1001
A.D. Mane, J. 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded, dated 19th February, 1986 by which Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded as compensation to the claimant-respondent, and they are thus disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the claim may be summarised as follows:On 1st January, 1983, at about 10 a.m. the claimant-respondent Abdulla Khan, who was a Probationary Police Sub-Inspector attached to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, was proceeding on his bicycle to the Police Station along the right side of the road. One Mohd. Shafi was also following him on his bicycle. When the respondent Abdulla Khan came near the I.T.I. bus-stop that is to say in front of the Patel Automobiles Shop, a military truck 3 Ton BA bearing No. 74-D 14807 of 52 Maharashtra Battalion N.C.C., Nanded driven by the appellant in First Appeal No. 79 of 1986 came f...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Abdulla Khan Biban Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC427
A.D. Mane, J.1. These appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nanded, dated 19th February, 1986 by which Rs. 50,000/- have been awarded as compensation to the claimant-respondent, and they are thus disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the claim may be summarised as follows:On 1st January, 1983, at about 10 a.m. the claimant-respondent Abdulla Khan, who was a Probationary Police Sub-Inspector attached to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, was proceeding on his bicycle to the Police Station along the right side of the road. One Mohd. Shafi was also following him on his bicycle. When the respondent Abdulla Khan came near the I.T.I. bus-stop that is to say in front of the Patel Automobiles Shop, a military truck 3 Ton B A bearing No. 74-D 14807 of 52 Maharashtra Battalion N.C.C. Nanded driven by the appellant in First Appeal No. 79 of 1986 came fr...
Fdc Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT601Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are against the same order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. SKM-1923/89 B-II dated 19-9-1989. The appellants are manufacturing P. or P. Medicaments falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.19 of Central Excise Tariff. They are working under the modvat scheme in respect of the inputs permitted under the scheme. The disputed input is aluminium foil, which they brought under modvat scheme and sent the aluminium foil, under Rule 57F outside to job workers for conversion into sachets for packing of medicines. These aluminium foils at the time of receipt in their factory are laminated and printed with the details of the medicines and also bear the name of the manufacturer directions for use etc. These foils, on their receipt in their factory were entered into RG 23 register and credit taken, thereafter, they were sent for converstion into sachets by the outside job workers by virtue of the permission granted under Rule 57F. It w...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Chunilal Rai Chand Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR631(Bom)
1. In this Departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the asst. yr. 1971-72, the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question of law for opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee trust was covered by cl. (iii) of the proviso to s. 164(1) and hence was not liable to be taxed at a flat rate of 65% under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts and not in dispute. The assessee is a discretionary trust. Assessment is to be made under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The short question that has arisen in this reference is whether the assessee falls under proviso (iii) to sub-s. (1) of s. 164 because if it does fall under that clause, the assessee will have to be taxed at the rate applicable to its total income and not at the maximum rate. Proviso (iii) to s. 164(1) reads as under :'(iii) the relevant income or part of relevant income...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Bom)425; [1992]195ITR28(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These are cross references by the Department and the assessee. The assessment year involved is 1970-71. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :R.A. No. 1583 (Bom)/1974-75 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,52,000 being the compensation received by the assessee from the Central Government can be treated as capital gains in the hands of the assessee ?' R. A. No. 1540 (Bom)/1974-75 : '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,56,030 received by the assessee as per the terms of the consent decree dated June 11, 1969, is liable to be taxed as income of the assessee (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether such sum is liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. It is pertinent to mention that the issue involved herein had come up for cons...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Penwalt India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)20; [1992]196ITR813(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled in the present years to the grant of depreciation allowance under section 32 in respect of the assets whose cost has been allowed to be deducted in full in the earlier years in terms of section 35(1)(iv)/section 35(2)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether such depreciation allowance should be computed on the basis of the actual cost of the assets without applying Explanation 1 to section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the assessee-company carried on t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sati K. Sippy and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR276(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this Departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law for opinion 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 justified in cancelling (sic), the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order of assessment with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. In so far as the second question of law is concerned, counsel are agreed that, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of K. P. Varghese v. ITO : [1981]131ITR597(SC) , the question is to be answered in the aff...
Metal and Alloys Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 1992LC449(Bombay); 1993(64)ELT164(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Advocates for respondents 1 to 4 and for Respondent No. 5 waive service. 3. Writ petition as against respondent No. 6 dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. The petitioners imported from Taiwan a bulk consignment of Hydrogen Peroxide which reached the Port of Bombay on 19th February 1991. The Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of the consignment was filed on 19th February 1991. The Bill of Entry was assessed on 27th February 1991 but the goods were not permitted clearance. Coming to know that some objection had been raised as regards the valuation, the petitioners wrote a letter on 11th March 1991 to the 3rd respondent. It produced no result. The goods were not allowed to be cleared. Not even a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed this writ petition on 15th April 1991 asking that they should be permitted clearance upon the valuation stated in the Invoice. 6. Mr. Rege, learned counsel for Respondents...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »