Mumbai Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Empire Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR267(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, 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 two quashing of law to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not assume valid jurisdiction to proceed under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 40A(7) were not attracted in a case where no provision for gratuity liability was made in the books of account maintained by the assessee ?' 2. The principal question which arise for consideration of the court in this reference is as to whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings invoking section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relying on section 4...
Bank of India Vs. Aiyars Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR601
S.N. Variava, J.1. This is a Bank Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.. 21,18,692-65 ps. with interest thereon at the rate of 17.1/4% per annum from the date of the Suit till judgment and at the rate of 6% per annum from judgment till payment or realisation thereof.2. The facts are as follows :By and pursuant to an application made by the 1st defendant company, on 19th November 1973, the plaintiffs granted to the 1st defendant company a Cash Credit Facility in a sum of Rs 20 lakhs with interest thereon. The amount due under said facility were guaranteed by defendants 2 to 8 under a Deed of guarantee dated 19th November 1973, and by defendant No. 9 under another Deed of guarantee dated 19th November, 1973. The suit is for recovery of the amounts due under the said Cash Credit Facility against the 1st defendant as the Principal Debtor and against the other defendants as guarantors.3. After the date of the filing of the suit, by an order dated 30th April 1976 the 1st defendant has been order...
Biren Shah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals listed above are against the common order-in-original No. 33/92 dt. 26-8-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay.2. In the said order, the Collector has ordered absolute confiscation of a consignment of 75 cartons of staple pins valued at Rs. 76,121/- (CIF) under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He has also imposed varying penalties on five parties, including inter alia the three appellants before us. The other two parties do not appear to have filed appeals before us. In so far as the three appellants before us are concerned, the Collector has imposed the penalties as below :-(i) Shri Biren Shah-Director of M/s. Audio Rs. 50,000/- Visual Devices (P) Ltd. (Appeal No. 631/92-Bom.)(ii) Shri Mahendra Sheth, Partner of Sunil Rs. 20,000/- Shipping Agency, CHA (Appeal(iii) Shri Kishore Bhagat (Appeal No. Rs. 20,000/- C/632/92-Bom.) (i) to set aside the order imposing penalty on him, (ii) to set aside the order of absolute confiscation of the goods,...
M.S. Mehta and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: (1995)LC406Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order in Original No. S/8-11/85 Admn., dt. 5-11-1990 revoking the Custom House licence issued to the appellant's firm M/s. M.S. Mehta & Co. The firm is a partnership concern consisting of two partners S/Shri M.S. Mehta and Navin R. Shah.There were five charges against the appellant, out of which four were held to be proved by the enquiry officer and the Collector, after giving an opportunity to the appellants, considered the main charge held to be proved and came to the conclusion as below: "On going through the documents mentioned above, in my view, it is clearly established that the CHA firm had permitted Shri R.B. Bhatia and his two sons to transact their own business on the licence of M/s. M.S. Mehta & Co. It is true that there is no allegation of consideration of money monthly or otherwise for such operation on the licence by the Bhatias and possibly, as has come in the initial statements also of the concerned person, this was done by Mr. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Rajendrasinghji, Maharaja of Rajpi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: [1995]213ITR225(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar J.1. All these reference under the Income-tax Act and under the Estate Duty Act raise a common question relating to a certain property, viz., Rajpipla Palace, left by His Highness Rajendrasinghji, Maharaja of Rajpipla (deceased). Maharaja Rajendrasinghji of Rajpipla died on or about February 2, 1963, before the end of the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64. Income-tax return for the assessment year 1963-64 has been filed by his son, Raghubirsinghji, in his capacity as a legal heir of the late Maharaja Rajendrasinghji. Income-tax returns for the subsequent assessment years are filed by Raghubirsinghji. The years of assessment which are involved in Income-tax Reference No. 152 of 1978 are assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 to 1971-72 for which previous years ended on March 31, 1963, and 31st of March in each succeeding year up to March 31, 1971. Income-tax Reference No. 57 of 1983 raises the same question in respect of the succeeding assessmen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Pitambardas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: [1995]216ITR172(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for its opinion at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), cancelling the penalty order under section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1972-73. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for the relevant year on July 31, 1972, showing an income at Rs. 4,15,600. The assessee did not pay the self-assessment taxes in accordance with the said return. A sum of Rs. 98,284 was the income-tax payable by the assessee as and by way of self-assessment. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for non-payment of self-assessed tax according to its own return. The Inspect...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC132; 1994(69)ELT460(Bom)
Kurdukar, J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 12-7-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (issued on 29-7-1982) and on appeal confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 6th November 1982, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for refund of customs duty paid in excess due to arithmetical error. 2. At the outset, it may be stated that the Respondents have not filed any return in the present petition. According to the petitioners, the goods were imported under Import Licences OGL/3/80 in April 1981. The said goods under OGL were allowed for actual user only. Copy of invoice (Ex. 2) is annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal dated 7th September 1992. It is further averred by the petitioners in the said affidavit that at no stage these goods are sold to outsiders and the petitioner No. 1 has not passed the incidence of duty to consumer. It was further stated th...
Sunita Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. (A), B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT651(Bom)
Kurdukar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 30th October, 1980 (Exhibit H) and 19th December, 1980 (Exhibit I) passed by the Respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 2nd February, 1983 (Exhibit M) made by the Respondent No. 1 rejecting petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. 2. In our opinion, both these prayers cannot be granted. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited company and running a factory at Andheri-Kurla Road, Bombay. They manufacture sugar and chemicals Machinery, Industrial plant and Equipment. The petitioner was registered in the year 1975 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a small scale Industry and got registered as Small Scale Industry with the Directorate of Industries and was allotted the Registration No. MH/GB/S-581. Since the petitioner did not pay excise duty a show cause notice on October 27, 1978 came to be issued for the...
Shankar Ragnath Kulkarni Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR607
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Question is whether the suit lands were 'Watan Lands' as defined under section 2(h) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 (the Abolition Act) on or before 1st February 1951 when the said Act was brought into force. 2. The point arises against the following undisputed factual background. Survey No. 592/1, 6 acres, 34 gunthas, Survey No. 592/2, 4 acres and 14 gunthas and Survey No. 592/3, 4 acres and 11 gunthas from village Kudas taluka Khed, District Pune, were the ancestral property of the plaintiff- Shankar Kulkarni. They were 'watan property' under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (The Watan Act). In the Inam Patrak of 1898-99 (Exh. 102) it is mentioned that a Judi was levied upon these lands which the predecessors of the plaintiff were paying. In the Inam Patrak of 1909-10 (Exh. 103), it is mentioned that the Government started recovering full assessment from the predecessors of the plaintiff who were Watandars. The plaintiff had app...
Wahid Rajjak Sawar Vs. Shahanaz Wahid Sawar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC4
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The appellant-husband has filed this appeal taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court at Pune on July 30, 1991, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to his two-years old male child from the date of the application preferred under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on Jan. 17, 1991.2. The 1st respondent-wife and the appellant were married in Pune and cohabited there. However, it was the case of the 1st respondent that she was ill-treated and was compelled to return to her parental house where she delivered respondent No. 2 who at the time when she made the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance was six months old. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- per month for the child. The application was resisted on the ground that the 1st respondent was divorced on April 9, 1991 as per the Muslim Law gover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »