Mumbai Court November 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. Baroax Morarji Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR1013(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1967-68. 2. The dispute is in relation to the computation of capital for relief allowed in respect of a new industrial undertaking under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was then in force, read with rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as in force at the relevant time. Under rule 19(3), as then in force, 'any borrowed monies and debts due' by the assessee shall be deducted while computing the capital employed in an undertaking. The Department contended before the Tribunal that the computation of money borrowed and debts due should not have been done as at the end of the relevant accounting period, but the value of the liability in this regard should have been taken on an average basis. This contention has been negatived by the Tribunal. 3. The assessee had also contended that only the debts due and payable by the assessee at the end of the relevant accounting period should be deducted under rule 19(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Bom)22; [1995]216ITR708(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference is in respect of quantification of relief allowable under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as in force at the relevant time in respect of a Burshane cylinder factory of the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. In the books of account of the assessee-company, the profit and loss account of this unit showed a net profit of Rs. 2,60,536. This figure was arrived at after deducting depreciation of Rs. 2,09,251. The assessee contended that for the purpose of working out the relief under section 80-I, which relief at the relevant time had to be granted at eight per cent. of the profits and gains derived from the priority industry, depreciation ought to have been added back to the net profit of this unit as shown in the books. This contention of the assessee has been upheld by the Tribunal in view of the decisions of the earlier Benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, although the Tribunal expressed some doubt as to wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Pushpaben Family Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR587(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna J.1. Filing of paper books dispensed with. 2. The Department has sought and obtained reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the following three questions which relate to the assessment year 1972-73 : '1. Whether, in relation to the previous year ended March 31, 1972, the beneficiaries of the income under the trust were the settlor's grand-daughters, Chhaya and Sangeeta, or also Pushpaben, the wife of the settlor's son, Gunvantrai Amratlal Sanghrajka 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the case fell within the category specified in clause (i) of the proviso to section 164(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tax was chargeable on the income of the trust for the assessment year 1972-73 as if the relevant income were the total income of an association of persons ?' 3. In CIT v. B. A. Sanghrajka Trust : [1990]181ITR484(Bom) , another family trust of the assessee, co...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Pandurang Balasaheb Nalavade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR83; (1993)95BOMLR866
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal taking exception to the dismissal of the greater part of it's claim on the foot of a loan advanced to defendant No. 1 for the benefit of the joint family headed by him and including defendants Nos. 4 and 5, as also, his guarantors the 2nd and 3rd defendants.2. Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 constituted a joint Hindu family, defendant No. 1 being the Karta thereof. The joint family was in need of money to repair an old well etc. etc., and therefore applied for a loan to the plaintiff-Bank. A loan of Rs. 12,000/- was agreed to be advanced and to ensure the repayment of the loan, defendant No. 1 passed a promissory note on 17-6-1970 and a deed of mortgage on 16-6-1970. The agreed rate of interest was 4% over and above that fixed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, subject to a minimum of 9% per annum. Adjusting the repayments made, as on 31-3-1973 a sum of Rs. 15,488.20 ps. was outstanding. This sum together with interest as from 1-4-1973 ...
Shrimal Shobhachand Bora and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC170
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Following an unfortunate incident at Goregaon on 19-10-1984 where in a young married woman by the name of Meena sustained sever burn injuries, the Police registered an offence on 20-10-1984. The father of the girl lodged a complaint to the effect that the husband, who is original Accused No. 3 Sunil Shrimal Bora, and his parents, who are original Accused Nos. 1 and 2, were responsible for the death of Meena. It was his contention that there was an original demand for Rs. 7.000/- by way of dowry and that his daughter had been ill-treated by the Accused and that, consequently, the suicide by Meena, which had taken place on 19.10.1984, was caused by the three Accused who were also liable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for having treated her cruelly. The couple was married in February 1982 and the marriage was about 2-1/2 years old when Meena sustained the burn injuries. On the basis of the complaint, the Police arrested the three Accused and on completion ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›