Mumbai Court August 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.
India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.N. Panda, Deputy Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Bom)140; [1993]200ITR710(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and carry on, inter alia, business as property owners, financiers and hoteliers. The petitioners have challenged a notice dated December 17, 1990, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the respondents under which the respondents propose to reassess the petitioners' income for the assessment year 1988-89. 2. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned advocate for the respondents, has produced before us the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice of December 17, 1990. As per the reasons so recorded, it seems that the assessee-company was the owner of a plot of land together with structures thereon known as 'Mor Bunglow' situated at Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (East), Bombay-400057. The assessee-company entered into an agreement with its parent company, M/s. C. R. Developers Private Limited in respect of this property. The lease agreement is dated April 3, 1967. The ...
Ramchandra Vishnu Tendulkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR7
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Sale of Trees by Occupants belonging to Scheduled Tribes (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1991. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are Adivasis and are holders of lands situated at Village Khand, Khoste and Vikramgadh of Jawhar Taluka in Thane District. The petitioner No. 1 is the contractor who has entered into agreement for purchase of trees from petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are tribals and were in occupation of agricultural lands under cultivation and which lands were granted to them, under various land tenures, as occupants or holders and the lands are not of the ownership or proprietorship of the tribals. The tribals had no right to the trees standing on the lands and the trees vested in the State Government under provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1897. On August 15, 1967 the right to all the tree gr...
B.M. Rele Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)44ITD231(Mum.)
1. These eleven appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the Dy. CIT(A) for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1979-80, confirming the penalties levied by the ITO, under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The position of filing of the returns, the due dates and the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, is as under:Asst.Date of filing Due date Notice under sectionYear of return 148 issued on.1969-70 01-03-1978 30-06-69 10-03-1979 In response to the show-cause notices, the assessee stated before the ITO that his quantum appeals were pending before the Tribunal and, requested that the proceedings be kept pending till the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal. As the limitation for levying the penalty was expiring on 31-3-1987, the ITO did not grant time to the assessee and levied penalties for various amounts, aggregating to Rs. 1,56,860 for the periods of delay, after...
Antony Sauri Pilley Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR153; 1993CriLJ1502
1. The appellant in this case stands convicted for an offence punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane has awarded him a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is in jail. 2. Kumari Deshmukh has been appointed Counsel by the State to appear on his behalf. According to the Prosecution, P.S.I. Jagannath Salunkhe (P.W. 3) received some information that the accused was dealing in Ganja and pursuant to this information, he and members of the raiding party went to the hut of the accused, which is in a Zopadpatti opposite an S.T. bus stand at Vithalwadi. They called out the accused, who is alleged to have emerged from the hut, and they offered search of themselves which he declined. Thereafter the hut was searched and it is alleged that a gunny bag was found under a cot, on ex...
Dhirajlal Chatrabhuj Ratnagrahi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR610; 1993CriLJ666; 1993(2)MhLj644
1. A valid sanction order is the starting point for a prosecution on corruption charges. The Courts have been severe, and for good reason, on sanction orders that display non-application of mind, but in this case a unique situation has arisen where the prosecuting authority applied for fresh sanction on the ground that the first sanction was defective. The subsequent sanction order issued by the successor-in-office has been struck down by the trial Court on the ground that it was issued mechanically and the learned Judge proceeds to hold that the first sanction order, which was on record, was good enough to sustain the prosecution. Not only is this impermissible but it needs to be stated that the earlier order having been superseded that it cannot thereafter be resurrected by the prosecution's efforts to resuscitate it. 2. An often overlooked dimension relating to trap cases in corruption offences arises in this proceeding. That it is impermissible for a public servant to receive illeg...
Blue Star Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR860(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners carry on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing, supplying and installing air-conditioning, refrigeration, ventilation and humidification equipment. The petitioners entered into an agreement dated September 23, 1982, with Messrs. Taj Lanka Hotels Ltd. On or about March 24, 1983, the petitioners had applied for approval of this agreement under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, by their order of 6th/10th of March, 1986, declined to approve the agreement under section 80-O. The Board also did not grant approval in a review petition which was filed by the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The agreement of September 23, 1982, which is annexed as exhibit 'A', recites that the petitioner-company has developed and acquired technical expertise in the areas of design and developing heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems and in selection of appropriate heating, ventil...
Saiko Matek Engineering Private Limited Vs. D.C. Pant, Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Bom)108; [1993]204ITR839(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. This writ petition pertains to the assessment year 1990-91, the relevant accounting year being April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990. The petitioner-company filed a return for the assessment year 1990-91 with the respondents on November 12, 1990, showing assessable income at Rs. 50,049 against which unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 50,049 was adjusted, resulting in nil income. The respondents, however, sent an intimation dated December 2, 1990, under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,89,480 by computing the taxable income at Rs. 2,25,269. The petitioners filed an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for correction of several errors apparent on the face of the order. Thereafter, in the rectification application which was filed by the petitioners under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, by his order dated February 22, 1991, partly r...
Popatlal Dhanraj Wadgaonkar Vs. Dattu Yeshwant Tapkir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC669
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The appellant herein was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident goods truck bearing registration No. MHQ-2832. The respondent No. 1 herein was the applicant who filed the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 was the driver of the motor vehicle and respondent No. 3 the insurance company.2. The accident took place at about 10.30 p.m. on 9th February 1981 on Alandi Pune Road at Vadmukhwadi, Charholi. The respondent No. 1 was one of the members of the marriage party which was taken in the motor vehicle. He was sitting in the driver's cabin. At a certain place the truck halted and the respondent No. 1 was trying to alight when the truck started all of a sudden and respondent No. l fell down due to which respondent No. 1 suffered serious injuries. He was required to be hospitalised for nearly 1 -1/2 months and was not able to work as a labourer. This gave rise to the claim petition by respondent No. 1 who claimed compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. The claim was n...
Savitribai Chandrakant Gawade Vs. Mahesh Trading Company and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC612
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The appellant herein filed application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as she suffered serious injuries to her right foot due to the accident which occurred on 30th March, 1982.2. On 30th March, 1982 at about 5.30 a.m. the appellant was proceeding in the Rickshaw No. MT'S 4920 along with her husband and child. She was proceeding from Thane Railway Station towards Kalwa side it was the case of the appellant that when the Rickshaw came near the Kalwa Police Outpost on Bombay-Pune Road, Truck No MTT-8415 came from the opposite side. It was driven in a high speed and rashly. The truck brushed against the rickshaw causing serious injury to her right foot due to which she was required to be hospitalised and to take long treatment. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. The claim made by the appellant came to be resisted on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 3 inter alia on the gro...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishwas Bhujangappa Shete and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC689
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company who was opponent No. 3 in the Claim Petition. Respondent No. 1 was the applicant. Respondent No. 2 was opponent No. 4, the driver of the vehicle, and Respondent No. 3 was opponent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle.2. On 9th December, 1980, the Respondent No. 1, aged about 36 who was working as Secondary School Teacher and earning about Rs.77l/- per month, was proceeding on foot towards Silver Jubilee High School. At that time, respondent No. 2 was driving the motor cycle bearing No. MTZ 6713. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that respondent Noj2 came from behind on the motor cycle in a fast speed. He was rash and negligent in driving the same and dashed against him causing fracture to his right thigh and other injuries. Respondent No. l was required to be admitted as indoor patient from 21st December, 1980 to 21st February, 1981. This gave rise to the claim petition by respondent No. l who claimed compensation of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »