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. Hico Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR567(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. By this reference, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court for opinion : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, in the case of directors who were the employees of the company, the provisions of section 40A(5)(a) and the ceiling or limit contemplated therein under clause (c) would not apply but only the ceiling of Rs. 72,000 contained in the provision to section 40A(5)(a) would be attracted and consequently, the limit would be Rs. 72,000 and not Rs. 60,000 as stated by the Income-tax Officer (2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation allowance given under section 32(1)(iv)/35(2)(ia) of the Act are disjunctive and cumulative and not alternative and, accordingly, upholding the grant of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR266
ORDER1. This reference was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax in the year 1977. Under Rule 658 of the High Court, Original Side Rules, it is the duty of the party at whose instance the reference is made to serve the notice on the opposite party and this should be done within two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the High Court. Though long 15 years have passed, in the instant case the Commissioner, at whose instance the reference has been made, has not served the notice on the respondent. The matter was placed as required by Rule 658 by the Prothonotary before the Court for necessary orders on 9th November, 1992. On that day, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel for the department stated that in respect of all pending matters of 1977, service will be effected and/or affidavit of service will be filed on or before 16th November, 1992. Accordingly, time was granted to the Commissioner at the request of the Counsel to effect service and filed affidavits of servi...
Dr. M.K. Karanjia Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR441
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Admit.2. The learned Advocate for the Respondent Waives notice. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.3. The Appellant herein filed Suit No. 7327 of 1986 and took out Notice of Motion bearing No. 6220/1986 inter alia claiming interim relief in terms of prayer (a) of N/M. which is as follows:(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants, their officers, subordinates, servants, and agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from demolishing or pulling down the suit structure of the plaintiff admeasuring 37'-6' 36'-6' constructed of brick masonary walls and A.C. sheet roof, situate at Koliwada Madh Village, Jethi Road, Malad (West), Bombay 400061 assessed by the defendants under No. PN-6905/20/2-61 BF Madh Koliwada or any part thereof or from taking any steps in pursuance of the or in purported enforcement of the said Notice enumerated in prayer (a) of the Plaint, i.e. No. WOP/N/351/41/NWN/86 dated 1.9.1986.4...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)14
U. T. SHAH, J. :Under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions at the instance of the Revenue.(1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash payment such as rent and conveyance allowance were not to be treated as perquisites for the purpose of disallowance under s. 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(v) of the IT Act, for 1968-69 to 1971-72 assessment years ?'(2) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 43A(2) of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the development rebates should be allowed on the actual (increased) cost which it paid for acquiring the machinery installed by it after the devaluation dt. 6th June, 1966 and not on the original lower cost, which was agreed to be payable prior to the date of devaluation, for 1968-69 assessment year ?'2. At the time of hearing counsel for both the parties were fair enough t...
Gurunath Kanha Bhagat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR734
M.L. Pendse, J.1. There is no merit whatsoever in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of order dated December 2, 1985 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supplies Department. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate how frivolous is the petition.2. The Controller of Rationing, Bombay had invited applications for a new authorised ration shop at village Kon, Taluka Bhivandi of Thane District. 3 applications were received and on scrutiny Smt. Mhatre was allotted the shop by the order dated July 27, 1984. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Secretary to the Government to challenge allotment in favour of Smt. Mhatre. The Revision Application was allowed and the proceedings were remanded for fresh consideration. After holding a fresh enquiry, the Controller of Rationing allotted the shop to the petitioner by order dated June 13, 1985. Thereafter Smt. Mhatre preferred a Revi...
indequip Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR417(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether the claim of the applicant to deduct under section 28 or section 36, Rs. 1,38,148 in computing its income from business has been rightly rejected ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It carried on business as dealers and suppliers of mill gin stores and clothes. It was also supplier of Burshane gas. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The previous year was the year ended on March 31, 1970. 3. In the course of its business the assessee used to sell coal, glue products, Burmashell oil and allied products to various textile mills including one M/s. Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Manufacturing Company Limited of Ahmedabad. It was one of the biggest purchasers of the products supplied by the assessee. From the year 1962 onwards, the aforesaid ...
State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station Officer Vs. Prabhudaya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR410; (1993)95BOMLR31; I(1993)DMC137
A.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the finding of acquittal recorded in favour of original accused/respondents for the offences punishable under section 302, 498-A, 201 read with section 34 as well as under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts leading to the prosecution are precisely as thus -On 28-4-1984 deceased Sangita, daughter of P.W. 8 Madanlal of Paratwada, district Amravati got married with Accused No. 2 Rajkumar s/o accused No. 1 Prabhudayal and accused No. 3 Smt. Sushilabai. Accused No. 4 Ku. Mohani is also their daughter. After marriage deceased Sangita started residing at her matrimonial place at Murtizapur, district Akola with accused persons. Between the night of 14th and 15th September, 1984 Sangita was found dead in a mysterious circumstances in the compound of rear side of the residential premises of the accused. Accused No. 1 Prabhudayal at about 3.45 a.m. on 15-9-1984 submitted a report vide Ex. 82, wherein...
Manager, Ardee Polypack Industries and ors. Vs. Nidgiri Satyappa Pujar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1206
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This appeal is filed against the decision, dated 17th January, 1987, given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Ratnagiri in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 61 of 1986.2. Appellant No. 1 in this case is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Appellant No. 2 is the driver of the vehicle and appellant No. 3 is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Ratnagiri. By the award, dated 17th January, 1987, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri, awarded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the present respondent, the brother of the deceased Durgappa Pujari.3. It is contended on behalf of the respondent-claimant that his brother Durgappa met with an accident on 4th June, 1986, at Shivajinagar, Ratnagiri. Due to the said accident the vehicle belonging to appellant No. 1, driven by appellant No. 2, knocked down the deceased Durgappa who ultimately succumbed to death. Respondent-claimant, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal contending therein t...
Chhaganlal Nathubhai Patel Vs. Bhagirath Kheraji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1152
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Thane.2. The appellant, Chhaganlal Nathubhai Patel, is a person of Indian origin who has acquired British citizenship and who was working for his livelihood in the United States of America. In the States, Chhaganlal was running a hotel in Los Angeles which is in the State of California and also doing business as an insurance agent with the Metropolitan Insurance Company. Chhaganlal's wife and children were in India and from time to time he was coming to this country to see them. One such visit was made by him in July, 1978. Chhaganlal on 16.1.1979 stalled en route to Bombay with a friend Hasmukh Jariwala and two others in a car of Fiat make. Hasmukh was at the steering wheel and Chhaganlal was seated by his side. The rear side of the car was occupied by two others. The car left Surat at about 8.00 a.m. On the very day, i.e., 16.1.1979, opponent's witness Pakarsin...
Mrs. Ana Maria Pereira Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ317
A.V. Savant, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Ana Maria Pereira is the mother of the detenu Nazario Sebastiao Dias who has been detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the COFEPOSA Act') under the impugned order dated 5th March, 1992. The petition seeks to challenge the said order dated 5th March, 1992. The relevant facts may be, briefly, stated as under :- 2. It appears that reliable information was received in the Office of the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, that one Sebastiao R. Pereira, a resident of 202, Nirman Apartment, Andheri (E), Bombay, was indulging in receiving and making hawala payments on behalf of persons resident outside India without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the said information, the premises of the said Sebastiao Pereira were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »