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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Late B.M. Pandya [by Legal Heir Sohanla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR471(Bom)
V.A. Mohta J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I. T. Act'): 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act in respect of each employment separately?' 2. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee derived salary from two employers. He claimed two deductions under section 16(i) which have been granted by the Tribunal. 3. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the following Explanation has been added to section 16(i) with effect with effect from April 1, 1975: 'Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference...
In Re: Anthony Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR580
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioners are legal heirs of Mr. Custodio Nocholas Fernandes (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The deceased died at Karad on or about 16th December, 1989. Smt. Olive Fernandes, wife of the deceased died on 29th September, 1989. The petitioners are children of the deceased. The deceased was an Employee of the Metal Box Co., of India Ltd., and was entitled to receive gratuity and other dues form his employers. The petitioners seek issue of heirship certificate from this Court under Clause 3 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in form prescribed in Appendix 'B' thereto.2. The petitioners had originally made an application for the same relief to the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 34 of 1991.3. By an Order dated 2nd February, 1991, Shri V.D. Deshmukh, the Additional Principal Judge of Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, held that the petition was not maintainable in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay as it could be ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electro Metallurgical Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR494(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The following three questions are referred to us 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 law in holding that the roads inside the factory campus are also buildings eligible for depreciation as any of the other factory buildings 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner treating the tanks and reservoirs as 'plant' eligible for development rebate 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the tanks and reservoirs constitute 'plant' which are eligible for depreciation at the rate of ten per cent, as against five per cent, allowed by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74. The assessee claimed depreciation of the roads within its factory premises, which connected the various factory buildings in the complex an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.B. Hathiramani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR483(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, in respect of the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1968-69 the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalties levied by the Income-tax Officer under section 221 for non-payment of penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1968-69 ?' 2. During the assessment years to question, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied penalties of Rs. 7,000, Rs. 21,000 and Rs. 14,000 respectively, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by orders made on December 31, 1973. The assessee appealed against these orders. During the pendency of the assessee's appeals against the said penalty orders, the Income-tax Officer required the assessee to pay the outstanding amounts of penalty. By orders made in October 17,...
Kukreja Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR257(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was legal to make a single assessment aggregating the income for both the periods, in view of section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the tax charged on such aggregate income as a whole ?' 2. The facts of the case are brief. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment year is 1976-77. By added of partnership dated July 5, 1974, a partnership firm was constituted under the name and style of 'Messrs. Kukreja Agencies, Nagpur' with five partners, namely, Shri Kanhaiyalal Hassanand, Shri Arjundas Hassanand, Smt. Vinjihabai Hassanand, Smt. Sarlabai Cheturam and Shri Ghanashyamdas Hassanand. The firm came into existence with effect from the same date. The object of the firm was to c...
Panjikaran Paulose Joseph and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kusum Vithal Patil and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ242; 1993(2)BomCR62
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal is by the driver, owner and insurer of a private motor-bus bearing registration No. M.T.T. 4383, the driving of which motor-bus led to the death of Vithal Gopal Patil whose widow and children are arrayed as respondent 1 before us.2. Respondent No. 2 had hired the bus mentioned above and it was in the course of a task being executed for the second respondent that the bus on 16-11-1981 at about 6.00 a.m. dashed against Vithal leaving him dead instantaneously. At the time of his death Vithal was in the employ of Siemens (I) Ltd., his designation being that of a Draughtsman. Vithal was 45 years of age and was to retire on the attainment of age of 60 years. His sons Vinay, Prashant and Sandesh were 12, 9 and 4 years old at the time of passing away of their father, while his widow Kusum must have been just out of her twenties for she gave out her age to be 31 years when she came to testify before the Tribunal on 14-10-1983. The claim lodged by the widow and the so...
industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Fourth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Mumbai)401
ORDERN. R. PRABHU, A. M. :These two appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92. Common contentions have been raised. The appeals, which are against the order passed by the ITO under S. 201/192, are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is that the Commissioner (A) was in error in treating the conveyance allowance paid by the assessee to the employees and also the payment received by the children of the staff members under the revised education benefit scheme as part of thee salary of the employees.3. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the view taken by the ITO is totally untenable. The immediate provocation for treating these two amounts as part of the salary was the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1988 to the provisions of S. 2(24) by insertion of a new sub-section, namely 2(24)(iiia) of the IT Act. It has been the age old practice of the assessee to grant the employe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Grauer and Well (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)174
SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :The assessee is a company, and the assessment year involved is 1973-74, the previous year being the year ending 3rd December, 1972. During the previous year, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, came into force w.e.f. 16th September, 1972. In view of the previous of this Act, the assessee claimed in the asst. yr. 1973-74 gratuity liability of Rs. 1,13,191 as per actuarial certificate. This amount was by way of provision for gratuity for the current year as well as the earlier years, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Out of the sum of Rs. 1,13,191, a sum of Rs. 90,913 was in respect of liability for the earlier years. The ITO disallowed the deduction in respect of liability for the earlier years amounting to Rs. 90,913.2. Being aggrieved by the order of the ITO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the AAC. The AAC accepted the contention of the assessee that the liability was enforceable not only in respect of the accounting year under conside...
Sau. Sheela and Another Vs. Subhash and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR843; 1993CriLJ848
ORDER1. The applicants who are the wife and son of the non-applicant No. 1 Subhash, have challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 211/90 setting aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of applicant No. 1-the wife by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, Court No. 3. 2. The undisputed position is that, the applicant No. 1 was married to non-applicant No. 1 some time in the year 1983. They lived happily for some time. But from February 1985, applicant No. 1 wife went to reside in the house of her maternal uncle and since then she did not return to the house of non-applicant No. 1. While this was the position, applicants filed an application under S. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance on 20-1-1989. During the pendency of the said maintenance application non-applicant No. 1 filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 78/87 for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. While the maint...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Rodhan H. Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR957(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It pertains to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee's father had paid during his lifetime certain annuity deposits under Chapter XXII-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as then in force. The father of the assessee died in February, 1970. The father of the assessee had nominated the assessee under the Annuity Deposit Scheme for the purpose of receipt of the instalments of annuity in the event of his death. He also left a will under which the assessee was the sole executor and sole beneficiary. 2. For the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the assessee received repayment of an instalment of annuity deposit of Rs. 9,905 and interest of Rs. 2,476 in respect of the deposits made by his deceased father. There is no dispute that the interest of Rs. 2,476 received for both the years is taxable income in the hands of the assessee. The dispute, however, relates to the receipt of the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »