Mumbai Court May 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.
Modern Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD370(Mum.)
1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned Income-tax Officer have erred in not allowing as business loss the sum of Rs. 37,11,433 pertaining to advances made to Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited and Minerva Mills Limited which became irrecoverable during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1975-76." 2. "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the aforesaid advances were incidental to business and were therefore fully allowable when the same became irrecoverable.Thus, the dispute is about the deductibility of Rs. 37,11,433 as business loss.. The assessee-company was engaged in manufacture of textiles. The previous year relevant to this appeal comprised of 12 calendar months of the year 1974. There were two other textile mills under the same management. They were (1) Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited (Mysore Mills for short) and (2) Minerva Mills Ltd. (Minerva Mills for short). A t...
Trustees Godrej Trust Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD185(Mum.)
1. The main issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund of tax of Rs. 4,20,321 could be treated as the assessee's income available for application on the objects of the trust.2. The assessee is a public charitable trust. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant previous year is the calendar year 1982.3. Right from its inception the ITO had granted exemption to the entire income of the assessee under Section 11 of the Act. However, relying on certain changes made in the relevant provisions of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the ITO held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act, as it had held shares of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. The assessee, therefore, was required to pay tax of Rs. 4,01,541 in the assessment year 1972-73 and Rs. 2,54,460 in the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee had preferred appeals against the said action of the ITO before the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, who had confi...
Eighth Income-tax Officer Vs. M. Vishvasaraya Industry
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD116(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue challenges the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 2-2-1987 in relation to the assessment year 1983- 84. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 7,77,000 appropriated towards sinking fund is not a provision out of income includible in the total income and consequently erred in deleting the addition.3. The arguments of the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee were heard.4. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and its primary object is to develop the World Trade Centre premises at Bombay which housed show-rooms, sales emporium, shopping arcades, etc.It took on lease a plot of land for 99 years from the Government of Maharashtra, and, after having built a building known as World Trade Centre thereon, leased out the shops, show-rooms, etc. to various lessees for a period of 60 years commencing from the date on w...
Syndicate Bank and Another Vs. Kailashchandra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas392(Bom)
M.B. Ghodeswar J.1. The appellants - original plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated September 29, 1982, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 1982. 2. The plaintiff - Syndicate Bank sued the defendants for recovery of Rs. 73,016.97. The plaintiff - bank had given two loan facilities to respondent No. 1 trader. On October 16, 1978, a loan of Rs. 10,000 was given for purchase of weighing scales to respondent No. 1 and on August 21, 1979, an overdraft facility of Rs. 20,000 was given. Respondent No. 2 stood surety. The rate of interest was at 3.5 per cent. above the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India subject to a minimum of 12.5 per cent. with quarterly rests. The amount was to be paid in monthly instalments and, in case of default, overdue interest of two per cent. more than the regular rate was agreed to. The interest was to be paid quarterly and if not, it was to be added to the principal amoun...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Miss. Sudha P. Patel and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR8(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna J.1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue and pertains to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1974-75. The question referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the right of occupation or use of the premises granted by the company to the assesses did not demand any market value and, consequently, in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The reference is a consolidated reference in respect of two assesses whose are sisters, the cases of both the assesses being identical. The two assesses jointly acquired by purchase 100 shares of Rs. 100 each in a company named M/s. Shyam Estates Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred to as 'the company'). The shares of the company were purchased by the two assesses from a partnership firm styled M/s. Tulsidas V. Patel. By virt...
Rasik Ramji Kamani Vs. S.K. Tripathi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR159; [1993]203ITR848(Bom)
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Soon after Chapter XIX-A was introduced into the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the petitioner herein - Rasik Ramji Kamani involved the facilities afforded by that benign fiscal measure, by moving the Settlement Commission with the necessary application. The application was admitted on December, 15, 1976. Soon thereafter, the Commission, by its notices issued in December, 1976, directed the petitioner to file a statement of facts (in relation to the income-tax and wealth-tax, respectively, on 24th, 25th, and 26th December, 1976). Such a statement was filed, but only on March 7, 1978, 'seeking successive adjournments'. 2. The Kamani family, of which the appellant is a member, was in control of several corporate entities. It is a fairly long list. As it quite often happens in respect of such controlled companies, the members of the family had their distinct rules in ordaining the affairs of those companies. 3. Some had vaster powers ...
G.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1991LC186(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT29(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Leave to amend. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Sethna waives service. Heard. 2. The writ petition impugns the order of the 3rd respondent requiring the petitioners to pay Excise Duty in the sum of Rs. 50,33,21,605.25 and a personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- within 10 days of the receipt of the order. The principal challenge is that the principles of natural justice have been violated. By a letter dated 6th March 1991 addressed by the petitioners 'advocates to the 3rd respondent, cross-examination was demanded of 30 witnesses to test the veracity of statements made by them. The reasons for requiring the cross-examination were set out in detail, it was stated, in the reply to the show cause notice. It is the petitioners' case that at the hearing which took place on 6th March 1991 the 3rd respondent only heard submissions on the matter of summoning these witnesses for cross-examination and that no arguments on any other point, much less on the merits of the case, were ...
Betel Stores Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ89
G.D. Patil, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. This is the revision under Rule 4 (v) of Chapter V of the Bombay High Court Rules, 1960, read with Section 115, Civil Procedure Code against the decision dated 26.3.1991 of the Taxing Officer of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short referred to as 'the High Court') in First Appeal Stamp No. 25947 of 1990, holding that the court fee paid by the applicant-appellant is inadequate and directing him to pay the deficit court fee of Rs. 15/- on the memo of appeal filed under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The applicant had filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), seeking relief in respect of the matter referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal by its order dated 4.10.1990, rejected the petitioner's claim to the extent of Rs. 634....
Akhil Bharatiya Dhan Utpadak Kisan Bachao Samity and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR1010
S.M. Daud, J.1. The two questions arising in these cross-petitioners are whether the State Government can suspend the operation of the Maharashtra Rice Levy on Rice-Millers Order, 1989 without the prior concurrence of the Government of India, and, if not, the effect on transactions entered into by traders and/or rice-millers acting on the representation of such suspension?2. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act) is a legislative measure to provide for the control of the production, supply and distribution of commodities deemed essential in the interests of general public. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government and/or its delegate vide Section 5 to issue Orders to regulate or prohibit the production, supply and distribution of such essential commodities. The Central Government by G.S.R. 800 dated 9th June, 1978 has delegated some of its powers under Section 3 to State Governments. The limitations placed on the delegates are that:(1) the powers to be exercised by a Stat...
Boda Singa Rajeshwar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC685Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant's attorney has requested to decide the appeal on merits without hearing. Hence, heard Shri Naik the Ld. J.D.R. and proceed to decide on the appeal.2. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 1094/90 dated 13-6-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals). The following facts are indicated in the appeal memorandum: The appellant is a Mauritius national and is working at Durban in South Africa. The appellant came to India with his wife and four children for sight seeing on 7-12-1989. He and his family brought foreign exchange in the form of foreign currency totally US $ 3250/- and travellers cheques of denominations of US $ 100,50 and 20 totally US $ 11610 and 5 travellers cheques of 100 each totally 500. The appellant was under the bona fide impression that since the total currency was within the permissible limit of US $ 6000 (US $ 1000 for each), they need not have to declare and obtain the currency declaration form. On the night of 11-12-1989, the officers of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »