Mumbai Court October 1993 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.
Gopal C. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Bom)377; [1994]209ITR946(Bom)
ORDERFacts :Appeal, touching issue in question, filed by assessee dismissed as time barred. Same issues dealt with by Tribunal while deciding revenue's appeal and finding recorded. Further question touching the issues referred by Tribunal under s. 256(1). Conclusion :Merely because assessee's appeal on the issues dismissed as time barred, it cannot be said the question did not arise out of Tribunal's order. Application :Also to current assessment years.Citation :Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(1) Head of income--BUSINESS INCOME OR CAPITAL GAINS--Purchase of lands part of which subject to acquisition proceedings and the already subject to sale agreement with third party.Held :The transaction of compulsory acquisition if land is respect of a capital asset could never be viewed as an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee had no choice but to claim compensation for acquisition of the said land. Even as far as the sale of land to V is concerned, the said lands were already subject-matter...
Rajas R. Doshi Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD77(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Brief facts of the case have to be set out to bring into focus the grievance of the assessee.2. The assessee is a director of Messrs. Walchand and Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's father, Sri Ratanchand Hirachand, was a director probably from the very inception of the company. In the year 1962, the company purchased three4 flats and they were let out to the directors. One such flat given to Sri Ratanchand was in a building at Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Bombay. The purchase price paid for this flat was Rs. 86,000 and the cost of two garages was Rs. 16,500. The rent realised from Sri Ratanchand Hirachand, father of the assessee, was Rs. 440 per month. Sri Ratanchand continued to be in occupation of the flat till his death in November, 1981. During the period between 1962 and 1981, when he died, there was only a marginal increase in the rent paid/payab...
Rajas R. Doshi Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)48TTJ(Mumbai)187
ORDERN. R. PRABHU, A.M. :28th April, 1992.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961. Brief facts of the case have to be set out to bring into focus the grievance of the assessee.2. The assessee is a director of M/s. Walchand & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessees father Sri Ratanchand Hirachand was a director probably from the very inception of the company. In the year 1962, the company purchased three flats and very were let out to the directors. One such flat given to Sri Ratanchand was in a building at Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hills, Bombay. Purchase price paid for this flat was Rs. 86,000 and the cost of two garages was Rs. 16,500. The rent realised from Sri Ratanchand Hirachand, father of the assessee, was Rs. 440 per month. Sri Ratanchand continued to be in the occupation of the flat till his death in November, 1981. During the period between 1962 to 1981 when he died, there was only a marginal increase in the rent paid/payable by Sr...
Emjey Enterprise Vs. Collr. of Customs, Air Cargo
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal No. S/49-226/85L, dated 27-11-1986 2 The appellants, who are traders, imported a consignment of Vit. A Acetate (feed grade) of cif value Rs. 62,475/-. They claimed clearance against OGL Appx. 6 lists part III Sr. No. 33 of AM 1984-85 policy.However, the Department objected to the clearance on the ground that the item is figuring against Sr. No. 3(16) of Appx. 5 Part B and hence it is canalised. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Dy.Collector, the goods were ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,25,000/-. This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).3. Shri Patel, the ld, advocate, appearing for the appellants pleads that he is not contesting the finding on merits, but seeks to rely on this Bench Order No. 1353/54, dated 25-8-1992,where this Bench, in an identical case, took note of the past practice of the Bombay Custom House in allowing clearance of Feed grade vitamin based on the clari...
Shital Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. V-Adj (22) 15-1/83/305 dated 5-3-1985 (7/85) passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II. Acting on certain intelligence that the appellants are removing processed fabrics in excess of the quantities specified in the gate passes by wrong totalling of the length of each piece with a view to evading duty on the excess quantity, the officers of preventive in headquarters, on 22-1-1983, intercepted a consignment of processed fabrics cleared from the appellants' factory carried in a tempo. On check of the gate pass and delivery challan it was revealed that 58 pieces of fabrics admeasuring 925.80 LM were indicated in these documents and duty was paid only on this quantity. But when physical verification was carried out, they found 1225-80 LM, thereby showing an excess quantity of 300 LM being cleared without the cover of the gate passes. Hence these fabrics were seized. On check of the quantities of processed fabrics lying in the ...
Gear Enterprises Vs. Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas756(Bom); 1994(1)MhLj348
M.S. Rane J.1. The points involved in the petition herein as also in another petition, both field by the creditors for winding up the respondent-company, viz., Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' for the brevity's sake), on the ground of inability of the company to pay debts, are as under: (i) Whether the petition filed, without obtaining prior permission under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'SIC' Act) from the Board for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction ('BIFR' in short) against the company already declared as 'a sick unit' by the BIFR under the SIC Act, prior to the presentation of the petition in the court is void ab initio and liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable. (ii) Whether the petition can be kept alive be keeping it in abeyance pending the inquiry under section 16 or preparation of the scheme under section 17 of the SIC Act. 2. Undi...
Aditya Textile Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR779(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. By this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for opinion. 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restoring the appeal to its file for fresh disposal for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 ?' 2. The assessee is a textile mill engaged in the manufacture of velvet and other types of cloth. Up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1959-60, all the processes, including the printing and processing of cloth, was done by the assessee-company itself. With effect from November 1, 1959, the assessee entered into a leave and licence agreement dated January 20, 1960, with the firm of Messrs. Devyani Dyeing and Printing Works whereby the printing and processing machinery of the assessee is supposed to have been leased out to the par...
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR328(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not eligible to weighted deduction under section 35B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 20,55,145 in respect of interest paid on post-shipment loans 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction in respect of the professional charges paid for designing for undertaking the export contract under section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar, alcohol products, plastic goods, industrial machinery, etc. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. The assessee ...
Shetticar Dadu Mahabaleshwar Vs. the Maharashtra Housing and Developme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR159
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel at length viz. Shri Gokhale for the petitioner, Shri Surana for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Bagve for respondent No. 3.2. This Review Petition discloses a very sorry state of affairs and a totally arbitrary conduct on the part of the officers of the first respondent Maharashtra Housing & Area Development) Authority (for short, the first respondent Authority). What makes it worse is that despite this Review Petition having been admitted as far back as on the 24th June 1992 and despite the petitioner having made allegations of malafides and fraud on the part of the officers of the first respondent, no care has been taken to file an elaborate affidavit at least denying the said allegations. As would be evident from the facts set out hereinafter, the first respondent Authority has filed a cryptic affidavit of its Assistant Estate Manager on 23rd March 1993. It only deals with the question as to whether review can be entertained. Beyond ...
Shree Mahesh Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mafatlal Engineering Industries Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR281
M.S. Rane, J.1. The points involved in the petition herein as also in another petition, both filed by the Creditors for winding up the respondent-Company viz. M/s Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for brevity's sake) on the ground of inability of the Company to pay debts, are as under:(i) Whether petition filed, without obtaining prior permission under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act) (1 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' Act) from the Board for Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (BIFR in short) against the Company already declared as 'a Sick Unit' by the BIFR under SIC Act, prior to the presentation of the petition in the Court is void ab-initio and liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable. (ii) Whether the petition can be kept alive by keeping it in abeyance pending the inquiry under section 16 or preparation of the Scheme under section 17 of the SIC Act. 2. Undisputedly the Compan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »