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.
Sirdar Carbonic Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR886(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling carbon dioxide in gaseous as well as in solid state. The assessee has a lease hold interest for a period of 99 years in a very large plot of land. By a board resolution dated July 23, 1959, the assessee resolved to demise a portion of this land admeasuring 1,653 sq. yds. for a term of 12 years to one Messrs. Bhor Industries Limited on the following terms :- (i) The ground rent was to be computed at the rate of Re. 1 per sq. yd. ; (ii) The licensee was required to construct a pucca one-storied building in accordance with the plans and specifications previously approved by the assessee at a cost of not less than rupees two lakhs; (iii) The licensee was entitled to use and enjoy such building free of any rent or compensation, but the licensee was required at its own cost to maintain and keep the building in tenantable repairs; (iv) The licensee was also required to pay all municipal and other taxe...
Jugalkishore Rampratapji Rathi Vs. Brijmohan S/O Rampratapji Rathi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR537
S.G. Mutalik, J.1. The present applicant is the original defendant No.3 in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1988 and he challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, below Exhibit 12, rejecting the application filed by him for the attachment of the immovable property of non-applicant No.1 (original defendant No.1) before the judgment, under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code.2. The defendant No.1 is the principal debtor who obtained loan from the plaintiff-bank, for which the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood sureties. The defendant No.1 did not repay the amount of loan and, ultimately, the plaintiff-bank filed Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1988 for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,53,820.75 from defendant No. 1. As defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood sureties, they are also impleaded as necessary parties.3. Before filing the Special Civil Suit, the plaintiff-Bank gave notices to defendants 1 to 3 and called upon to repay the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atamsingh Kohli and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1992
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)57
SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :The assessee is M/s. Atamsingh Kohli & Bros., Bombay.2. The assessment year involved is 1965-66. In the P&L; account for the relevant previous year, there was a surplus of Rs. 1,17,215. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 66,276 being profit from dry fruits and dates was also considered by the ITO in the assessment for the asst. yr. 1964-65. The assessee had, however, filed an appeal before the AAC challenging the inclusion of Rs. 66,276 in the assessment for the asst. yr. 1964-65.3. When the assessment for the asst. yr. 1965-66 was made, this appeal before the AAC for the asst. yr. 1964-65 was pending. Hence, the ITO included this amount in the assessment for the year 1965-66 also.4. In respect of the asst. yr. 1964-65, ultimately the Tribunal by its order dt. 16th July, 1973 held that the inclusion of the above amount of Rs. 66,276 in the aggregate profit for the asst. yr. 1964-65 was justified.5. In respect of the asst. yr. 1965-66, the Tribunal has ultimately ...
Union Bank of India Vs. Ankur Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom297
ORDER1. The suit Bill of Exchange is drawn by one S. Babubhai and Company and accepted by the firm of the 1st defendants in which defendants 2 and 3 are the partners. The suit Bill of Exchange was accepted by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendants in his capacity as a partner therein. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange.2. The suit Bill of Exchange comprises of four sheets. On the first sheet bearing stamp of Rs. 10/-, the main body of the Bill of Exchange is written. On the other three sheets bearing stamp of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 10/- and Rs. 1/- respectively attached thereto, the said S. Babubhai & Co, as drawers as also the defendants in their capacity as acceptors of the suit Bill of Exchange have subscribed their signatures. Each of the said three sheets attached to the first sheet of the suit Bill of Exchange mentions that the same is attached to the suit Bill of Exchange (Hundi) bearing No. 202 dated 19th October, 1987...
Asbestos Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: [1995]217ITR290(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The following questions is referred to us under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the said amount of Rs. 24,66,670 being the amount recommended by the Board of Directors for approval as dividend at the annual general meeting of the company should be excluded from the general reserve actually standing at Rs. 2,27,61,653 as on 1st April, 1973, while computing the capital for surtax purposes for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The accounting year for this assessment year began on 1st April, 1973. On this day, in the books of account of the assessee-company, the balance to the credit of the General Reserve Account was Rs. 2,27,61,653. Out of this amount a final dividend of Rs. 24,66,670 was declared by the assessee-company at its annual general meeting held on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Shah Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR792(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference application relates to the assessment year 1967-68. In the course of the assessment proceedings for this assessment year, the Income-tax Officer recorded his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed his income. The particulars of such concealed income were held by the Income-tax Officer to be as follows : Rs.Income of wife 11,095Loan from Madhusadan Gordhandas and Co. 50,000Interest paid to Madhusadan Gordhandas 33,415Jewellery 1,20,000amounting in all to Rs. 2,14,510. Since the minimum penalty imposable for such concealed income exceeded Rs. 1,000, the Income-tax Officer the proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice which was given by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 274 read with section 271 was as follows : 'Whereas, in the course of proceedings before me for assessment year 1967-68, it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your...
Dehu Ammunition Depot Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ342Bom
Pendse, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Shri Desai waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard counsel.The controversy in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands concluded by decision of Supreme Court reported : (1988)ILLJ543SC Union of India and Anr. V.M.T.S.S.D. Workers Union and Ors. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act and represents 85% of the workmen of Gola Barud Ammunition Depot at Dehu Road, a department of Government of India, which is an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for constitution of a Works Committee in each industrial establishment, and such Works Committee is constituted in the Ammunition Factory at Dehu. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Committee is not constituted in accordance with...
Canara Bank and ors. Vs. Vijay Shamrao Ghatole and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR338
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The plaintiff Bank has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court mainly on the ground of interest granted by it.2. The facts are that on 7.1.1982 the plaintiff Bank agreed to advance the loan of Rs. 1,64,000/- to the defendant No. 1 on execution of the pronote Exh. 44 by him. However, it is not in dispute that the actual loan granted to him was in the amount of Rs. 1,62,283/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said loan was advanced to the defendant No. 1 at the agreed rate of interest of 2.5% P.A. above the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 12.5% P.A. The said loan was guaranteed by the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 out of whom the defendant No. 2 is the father of the defendant No. 1. There was also a deed of hypothecation executed by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 made some repayments towards the loan and the interest. It is the case of the plaintiff Bank that on 2.8.1984 the defendant No. 2 who wa...
Dkm Property Investments and ors. Vs. Tolentino Pereira and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR479
G.D. Kamat, J. 1. By this application the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 45/92/B pray that, that suit be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division (A'Court) at Panaji.2. Regular Civil Suit No. 45/92 when instituted was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,000/- and was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji. Being a suit of a valuation less that Rs. 25,000/- the suit was on the Board of Junior Judge. A little later the plaintiffs sought revaluation of the suit by amending the plaint and which came about as a result of seeking some further reliefs. There is no point in dilating on this subject as, in my view, I am not called upon to go into the question of amendment. The only relevant fact is that after the amendment was permitted by the Junior Judge the valuation of the suit was far in excess of Rs. 25,000/-. Naturally, with amendment carried out the Junior Judge lost his jurisdiction to try that suit. The original pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cynamid India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR231(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference arises under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by reason of section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The assessee is a limited company and the period involved is the assessment year 1971-72. The relevant previous year was December 1, 1969, to November 30, 1970. All the questions pertain to the computation of capital which is required to be done on the first day of the accounting period for the purposes of calculation of surtax. The questions which are referred to us are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,96,000, which initially stood to the credit of 'retirement gratuity reserve' and was later transferred to the 'General Reserve Account' should not be deducted by the Surtax Officer, while computing the assessee company's capital base (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »