Mumbai Court September 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ghewarchand Chunilal Mohta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR656(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, the following question is referred to this court 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 correct in holding that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer was limited to specific issue ?' 2. The assessee declared an income of Rs. 12,636 in his return of income the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer had issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee failed to comply with them and, hence, the Income-tax Officer framed an ex parte assessment under section 144 on the total income of Rs. 35,510. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, by order dated June 15, 1976, set aside the ex parte order of assessment of the Income-tax Officer for disposal afresh. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.M. Mehta and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: [1995]214ITR716(Bom)
V.A. Mohta J. 1. The following questions are referred to this court by the Tribunal of the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1. T. Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'transfer if immovable property' by means of book entries is valid in spite of the fact that no registration has been made as required under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the capital gain is rightly assessable in the hands of the firm ?' 2. The assessee is a duly registered partnership-firm. It was constituted by four partners : (i) Wanmalidas Maganlal, (2) Chaganlal Maganlal, (3) Jagjivandas Maganlal, and (4) Nagindas Maganlal. The firm purchased a plot of land for Rs. 31,338 on February 27, 1967. The plot was all through treated as the property of the firm up to March 17, 1976, when by an agreement between the partners, the said asset was take...
Tag this Judgment!Achyutrao Dattatraya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR479
M.F. Saldhana, J.1. An important angle of procedural law has come into focus in this appeal. In a variety of prosecutions, notably corruption cases such as the present one, the law envisages that independent reliable evidence be forthcoming as a safeguard against witnesses who are interested in the success of the prosecution. It is for this purpose that the evidence of panchas assumes crucial significance and that evidence in turn rests heavily on the panchanama. It is, therefore, essential that the requisite procedural precautions be adhered to at all stages relating to the recording of the panchanama in question.2. In trap cases, much more than any other ones, the complainant is in the position of an accomplice for, it is he who in offering the bribe. The raiding party is not present when the transaction takes place and, therefore, the pancha who accompanies the complainant is not a formal witness but is virtually the star witness for the prosecution for, it is he who is required to ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Raju Alias Raya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR42; 1993CriLJ3571
ORDER1. The State has challenged the order passed by J.M.F.C., Wardha on 14-12-91 acquitting the accused by granting permission to compound offence under S. 394, r/w. 34, I.P.C. 2. Charge-sheet was filed against the respondents in the Court of J.M.F.C., Wardha on the allegation that on 20-3-85, respondents entered one Friends Restaurant and by giving threat to his life with a knife, they robbed P.W. 1 of a cash of Rs. 92/- from his counter and in the course of that transaction accused No. 2 also voluntarily injured P.W. 1 when he tried to prevent them and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec. 394, r/w. 34, I.P.C. 3. It seems that on behalf of the prosecution an application Exh. 22 was made on 16-10-91 to commit the case to the Sessions Court since the material before the Magistrate disclosed offence u/S. 397 r/w. 34, I.P.C., which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. In the meantime, before any order could be passed on this application, the matter was referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.D. Saraf (Huf)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR217(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. The following four questions (renumbered as 1 to 4) are referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax : '(1) Whether the provisions of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked in an assessment being made under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether the assessment made in the instant case was time-barred as it was made after the time-limit available under section 153(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) Whether the provisions of Explanation 1(iv) to section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had any application to the facts of the instant case (4) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Appeal No. 300/ (Nag) of 1977-78 filed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 154 dated April 18, 1977, without going into the merits thereof ?' 2. These four questions arise out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suhasinibai Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: [1995]216ITR518(Bom)
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. The following question is referred to us by the Tribunal : 'In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the assessee entitled to claim deduction from her income otherwise determined for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, on account of the commission paid By the assessee to Shri Jamnalal Goenka ?' 2. The facts of the case are that, according to the assessee, her husband was managing the work of her factory and was procuring work for it also for which the remuneration in question which was claimed as business expenditure was paid to him during the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The learned Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for both the above assessment years. However, in appeal against his order for the assessment year 1974-75, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the finding of the learned Income-tax Officer and allowed the commission paid to the husband of the assessee as business expenditure. In taking the above view, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!international Airport Authority of India Vs. Viru Muthu Sukhlingam and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR131; (2003)IILLJ388Bom; 1993(1)MhLj399
1. The appeal is directed against the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on June 20, 1992 in two Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 1040 of 1992 and Writ Petition No. 1072 of 1992, which were directed against the Award dated November 26, 1991 of the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Bombay (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. CGIT 16 of 1989. The reference was made to the Tribunal by the Central Government for determination of the dispute which had arisen between the appellants and the 1st respondent (hereinafter called 'the respondent'). The dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was as follows :- 'Where the action of the management of M/s International Airports Authority of India, Bombay, in relation to its Electrical Maintenance Div. I., at Bombay, in terminating the services of Shri Viru Muthu Sukhlingam, Khalasi (Assistant Fitter), w.e.f. August 14, 1982 vide Office Order No. AAB/Admn/125/37...
Tag this Judgment!The Peasants and Workers Party of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR443
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Rana waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, order, dated February 21, 1992 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner of India directing that the Peasants and Workers Party of India is no longer entitled to recognition as a State Party in the State of Maharashtra under Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Symbols Order, is under challenge. The Chief Election Commissioner of India directed that the party is not entitled to the exclusive use of the Symbol 'Cart' earlier reserved for the Party in the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners shall only be a registered unrecognised political party for the purposes of the Symbols Order. It is not necessary to set out the reasons which prompted the Election Commissioner of India to pass the impugned order as we are inclined to set aside the order on a very narrow ground that the petitioners had not sufficient opportunity to presen...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Puvayya Vs. Shantaram Shamrao Sao (Deceased) through L.R's.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1992
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR587
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This is a petition by the original tenant against the decree for possession of the demised premises in favour of the landlords on the ground of bona fide personal requirements of the landlords.2. The original plaintiff Shantaram filed RAE Suit No. 6781 of 1967 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the original tenant M.A. Puvayya. The suit was filed on the grounds of default of payment of rent; that the conduct of the tenant amounts to nuisance and annoyance, as also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. Both the Courts have held against the landlord on the issue of default of the tenant in payment of rent and the conduct of the tenant being nuisance, hence it is unnecessary to deal with that aspect of the matter. The solitary ground on which the suit has been decreed by the Lower Appellate Court is the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord.3. So far as the Trial Court is concerned, after taking into consideration the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Glorious Plastics Ltd. Vs. Laghate Enterprises and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom224; 1993(1)BomCR179; (1993)95BOMLR969; 1993(1)MhLj869
ORDER1. The Chamber Summons has been taken out on behalf of the plaintiffs for grant of leave to the plaintiffs under Order XXI Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), to execute the decree passed in the suit on 2nd September, 1988 against the respondents. On 20th July, 1990, the Chamber Summons was made absolute. However, on behalf of the 4th respondent herein, a Chamber Summons bearing No. 858 of 1991 was taken out to set aside the Order passed on 20th July, 1990 as against the 4th respondent. On 18th September, 1992, the said Chamber Summons bearing No. 858 of 1991 was made absolute and the Order passed on 20th July, 1990 in the present Chamber Summons was as against the 4th respondent only set aside and the Chamber Summons was restored to file for rehearing today as against the 4th respondent only. Hence, the hearing of the Chamber Summons as against the 4th respondent only has proceeded before me.2. In respect of amounts due and payable under sixteen B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »