Mumbai Court October 1992 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.
Acme Bobbins and Shuttles (P.) Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD316(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-I, Bombay and relate to the assessment year 1983-84. For the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and disposed of together by a common order.2. The assessee is a closely held company. Earlier it was engaged in the manufacturing activities. During the relevant assessment year, its manufacturing activities remained suspended. The relevant accounting year ended on 31-12-1982. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act (hereinafter called the Act). A sum of Rs. 58,78,814 was added under the head 'capital gains'. Vide note to the statement of total income enclosed with the return and the balance sheet for the relevant period, a sum of Rs. 51,44,000 was reflected as receipt. It was stated that this amount was received in respect of property in the occupancy at Cadell Road, Bandra. The receipt was stated to be of capital nature, hence, not exigible to tax. The Assessing Officer took...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paul Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: [1995]216ITR548(Bom)
ORDER.Ratio & Held :In view of the merger of the ITO's order for the asst. yr. 1981-82 in appeal, revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised is a settled position having been concluded against the revenue by several decisions of this court including CIT v. P. Muncherji & Co. (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom).Application:Also to current assessment years.A. Y. :1981-82 & 1982-83Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Deduction under s. 80HH/80J--WITHDRAWAL OF RELIEF--Without withdrawing relief for earlier years.Ratio & Held :Either in s. 80HH or in s. 80J of the Act there is no provision for withdrawal of development rebate for subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Hence, unless the relief granted for the asst. yr. 1980-81 was withdrawn, the ITO could not have withheld the relief for the subsequent years.Case Law Analysis :Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) followed.Application :Not to current assessment years.A. Y. :1982-83Income Tax Act 1961 s.80HHIn...
R.K. RubIn Proprietor Trans Continental Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR535; 1993LC161(Bombay); 1993(63)ELT222(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioners in the writ petitions are carrying on business as Customs House Agents under temporary licences granted to them under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. They have not qualified for permanent licences on account of their failure to pass the written and oral examinations conducted under these Regulations. In the present writ petitions, they have challenged the manner in which these Regulations, in so far as they pertain to conducting examinations, have been applied to them. The petitioners or persons working under them have passed the written examination within the prescribed period, but have failed to pass the oral examination. Hence, their licences have been terminated. 2. Under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, Customs House Agents who desire to work in Customs Stations are required to hold a regular licence granted under the Regulations. Under Regulation 8, there is a provision for grant of a temporary licence. ...
New Reshma Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(65)ELT11(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. These proceedings are placed before us on the request made by Union of India seeking relief against the Registry of this Court. The grievance of Union of India is that the Registry is not enforcing the Bank guarantee which the Union of India is entitled to in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court. To appreciate the grievance of Union of India, it is necessary to set out few facts. We propose to write an exhaustive order in view of the fact that the Union of India is required to encash several Bank guarantees in several Petitions with regard to the same subject matter. The petitioners instituted Writ Petition No. 933 of 1979 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench of this Court seeking refund of excise duty. The petitioners also sought the relief of restraining the Union of India from levying and collecting on the processed goods excise duty under Tariff Items Nos. 19 and 22 and under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (G...
Gurudas Balkrishna Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji-goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR27; (1993)95BOMLR60; 1994CriLJ444; 1993(2)MhLj1082
ORDER1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. Applicant in person has filed this application praying for transfer of a criminal case which he has filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Panaji and for some other reliefs. Applicant filed a complaint which is registered as Criminal Case No. 163/92/A before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, alleging an offence under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code against the Editor and Publisher of a local newspaper. 3. I have heard the applicant in person and also Shri S. S. Kantak who was appointed as Amicus Curiae and Shri G. U. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor. No ground is made out for transfer of the criminal case from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, and therefore, the prayer to this effect stands rejected. 4. The main grievance of the applicant appears to be that though he had filed a complaint for defamation as far back as 31st of July, 1992, the learned Magistrate has not even recorded his ...
Sureshkumar Sakharchand Shah Vs. Edna Sushila Samuel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR359
S.M. Daud, J.1. These are cross-appeals arising out of the judgement and decree of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune vis-a-vis Survey No. 52/6-C admeasuring 1 acre and 32-3/4 gunthas at village Vadgaon Sheri. Taluka Haveli, District Pune, more precisely described in para 1 of the plaint.2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 285 of 1985, hereinafter referred to as defendant as the owner of the suit land. The appellant in First Appeal No. 249 of 1985, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff is a businessman based at the Pune. Defendant's husband and the plaintiff were clubmates, both being the members of the Pune club. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land from the defendant and the said agreement was reduced to writing on 19-7-1971 at Exh. 55. Broadly speaking, the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- from out of the agreed price of Rs. 1,22,000/-, was to pay the balance within a period of nine months and in return the defendant was to pass a...
Rahimtulla Khan Vs. Commissioner of Police Gr. Bom. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR377
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Petitioner is the husband of detenue---Smt. Nabvat Nisha alias Baidawali who has been detained by an order dated 2-6-1992 passed by the 1st respondent under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drugs Offenders Act, 1981. The petitioner challenges the said detention.2. We have heard Mr. S.K. Jain, the learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. N.M. Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents. We have also perused the grounds raised in the petition and the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority and filed on behalf of the Home Department.3. Even though several grounds have been raised by Mr. Jain impugning the order of detention, we find that this petition can be disposed of on the question whether the acts referred to in the grounds of detention constitute activities of the detenue prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.4. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly summarise the grounds...
The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR115; (1993)95BOMLR947
B.V. Chavan, J.1. A short question that rises in this group of criminal revision applications is whether a Magistrate who is holding an inquiry under Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is respect of an information led before him against a person under Section 107 of the Cri. P. C, acting under Sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Code can pass an order directing such person to execute a Bond with or without surety for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour during the pendency of such enquiry till its conclusion.2. Since this is the only question that arises in all these matters, they are being disposed by this common order.3. Special Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur in proceedings under Section 107 read with 116 and 151 of the Code started on Istagasha, filed by the Police Inspector of Chandrapur, City Police Station, directed each of the persons in these cases to execute a P. R .Bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in like amount pendi...
M.G. Thatte Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR237; (1993)95BOMLR365; 1993CriLJ2878
ORDER1. The appellant, at the relevant time a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Railway Protection Force of the Central Railway at Solapur along with the Assistant Sub-Inspector, original accused No. 2 and the appellant in the companion appeal, stands convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Prosecution alleges that the complainant, Maula Khaja, and four other persons had obtained passes for taking away five bags of coal weighing 50 Kgs. each from the Loco Shed at a concessional rate in their capacity as railway employees. It is alleged that these persons had taken the coal out of the main gate where R.P.F. Rakshak Waghmode was posted. He had checked the gate passes and the cash receipts and sometime after the hamals who had been engaged along with Maula Khaja were on their way to Maula Khaja's residence, they were apprehended and brought back. The coal was weighted and found to be of ...
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)131; [1994]207ITR1017(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, refers for the opinion of this court the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the agreement dated January 12, 1964, the payment of Rs. 48,312 was in the nature of capital expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital expenditure of the assessee of Rs. 48,312 representing payment to the foreign collaborator was entitled to development rebate and depreciation and in dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 32/PN/75-76 ?' 2. Of these two questions, the first question has been referred at the instance of the assessee, while the second question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue. The year of assessment is 1966-67. 3. The assessee is a company which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of three-wheeler tempos. For the rele...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »