Mumbai Court January 1993 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaydwar Textiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR569(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 Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contract with Jam . and the other contract with Sayaji Mills No. 2 resulting in the payment of compensation did not amount to a speculative transactions and in directing the allowance the allowance of the loss of Rs. 26,943 as a business loss ?' 2. From the statement of the case, it is clear that the amount paid in this case by the assessee was on account of the compensation for breach of contract, and that being so, we find that it would not amount to a speculative transaction within the meaning of section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. : [1983]144ITR57(SC) , while interpreting...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Awasthy Vs. M.R. Bhope, Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR841]
D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman has impugned Award (Part-II) passed by the 1st Respondent on 17th June, 1987 in Reference (IDA) No. 107 of 1983 in so far as it denied the 'benefit of reinstatement with full back wags, continuity of service' etc., to the workman. By the impugned Award, the Respondent No. 1 awarded a sum of Rs. 15,300/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement after computing the same on the footing of three years salary, at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month. 2. This petition narrates the sordid story of alleged molestation of a helpless Nurse in Nurses' Quarter by the petitioner-watchman working in a hospital duly supported by Ward-boys, another nurse and R. M. O. of the hospital and protest made by the petitioner against the action taken by hospital trust against the petitioner. The petitioner was heavily drunk on this occasion, say his own colleagues. The petitioner still wants the relief ...
Tag this Judgment!Sou Shobha Vs. Bhanudas Narayan Gawande and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC294
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Applicant is challenging the order dated 12-8-1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 77 of 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, reversing the judgment of the Trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the applicant.2. Mr. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the applicant, contended that the finding of the learned Revisional Court is perverse for the reason that no proper appreciation of evidence has been made by the learned Lower Court while the learned Trial Court has given the reasons for granting maintenance. He contended that the learned Lower Court has taken a perverse view presuming that there was no attempt on the part of the applicant to approach the non-applicant No. 1 for cohabitation and therefore held that the applicant herself has deserted her husband-non-applicant No. 1. He contended that the observations of the learned Revisional Court that when she was assaulted by her husband under the influence of liquor i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hulgavva G. Kunchikurve Vs. Gangaram Yellappa Kunchikurve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)23; (1993)95BOMLR331
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bombay on a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The original petitioner Hulgawa claiming to be the wife of the original respondent Gangaram Yellappa Kunchikurve applied to the Court for grant of maintenance to herself as also the six children which were born to her from the respondent-husband. In her application she averred that she had been residing as the legally wedded wife of the respondent Gangaram, in a hut at Kumbharwada, Dharavi alongwith her children and this hut belonged to her. A few months before the presentation of the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay, the husband had started insisting upon selling away the hut. She had opposed this move which resulted in the commencement of her ill-treatment. The respondent-husband has taken another woma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. G.K. Pendkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR698(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the extended time-limit for completing the assessment under section 153(1)(b) was not available to the Income-tax Officer as he had not come to grips with the alleged items of concealment before the normal period of limitation ran out ?' 2. The assessed-individual is a medical practitioner. He did not file any returns of income for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for both the aforesaid years were served of April 10, 1974. The assessee filed the return for the assessment year 1972-73 on January 6, 1975, declaring income of Rs. 26,132 while the return for the assessment year 1973-74 was filed on March 31, 1975, declaring income of Rs. 23,254. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Maniram and Others Vs. Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR593; (1993)95BOMLR285; (1993)IILLJ852Bom
H.D. Patel, J. 1. The appellants were in employment of the respondent Company since the year 1968-69 and belonged to the security staff. They are dismissed from service by the Company vide order dated July 1, 1986 with immediate effect. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellants under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court dismissed the application. On appeal being preferred to the Industrial Court, it came to be allowed. The order of dismissal issued to each of the appellants was held to be illegal, improper and the action was held to be an illegal charge. As a result thereof, each of the appellants was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of employment and payment of back wages. The order passed by the Industrial Court was challenged by the respondent Company in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1992. Vide order dated April 6, 1992 the order passed by the Industrial Court was set aside and the writ petition came to be allowed. It...
Tag this Judgment!Vitthaldas S/O Balkisan Gandhi Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR88; (1993)95BOMLR506
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. An interesting question as to the construction of section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has arisen for consideration in the instant writ petition.2. The facts are that the following lands viz. Survey No. 83-A area 1 hectare 96 acres, with mango trees. Survey No. 83-B, area .68 acres with mango trees, and Survey No. 83-C, area .78 acres with mango trees, all of village Thadipaoni, tahsil Narkhed, district Nagpur, the total area admeasuring 8.73 acres of land belonging to the petitioner were sought to be acquired by the State. It appears that initially there was a proposal for requisitioning the above land of the petitioner for resettlement of flood-affected persons of village Thadipaoni, tahsil Narkhed, district Nagpur. Although initially the petitioner had raised objections, he, lateron, by his letter dated 12-6-1982, gave his consent for giving his aforesaid land, whose survey numbers given in the said letter are old survey numbers, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.T. Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR538(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in capitalising the expenditure of Rs. 86,799 and allowing depreciation and development rebate thereon ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. The assessment year is 1966-67 and the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1965. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had incurred certain expenditure in setting up a factory for the manufacture of paper boards at Ujhani in District Badaun (U. P.). 3. The machinery was acquired from Calcutta and, after construction of the factory building, the same was installed. The assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,59,910 in connection with the construction of the factory and erection of plant. The assessee had capitalised this amount and claimed depreciation thereon. The Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Bom)47; [1993]202ITR36(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 Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the whole amount of Rs. 15,83,934 paid by the assessee to Messrs. Cummins Engine Company of U. S. A. in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated March 15, 1962, constituted revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of oil engines, etc. The assessment year under reference is 1973-74, the relevant previous year being year ended September 30, 1972. In the above previous year, the assessee paid to one Messrs. Cummins Engine Company incorporated in the U. S. A. ('Cummins') an amount of Rs. 20,79,513 as consideration for the following services : (i) Technical assistance for products to be manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajaram Bandekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)281; [1993]202ITR514(Bom)
Dr. B.B. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest of Rs. 4,23,453.56 which was included in the total amount payable by the assessee on instalment basis for acquisition of dumpers should be treated as part and parcel of the cost or was entitled to be added on which depreciation and development rebate is admissible ?' 2. The facts relevant for determination of the controversy raised in this reference are in a narrow compass. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee purchased tow dumpers from Messrs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. The Price of these dumpers was Rs. 16,59,625.52 (Rs. 16,49,915,80 being the cost of dumpers plus Rs. 9,709.32 being the cost of tra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »