Mumbai Court December 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.
New Excelsior theatre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR570(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The assessees, in the present case, are a private limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76 for which the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1975. The assessee-company was incorporated on September 27, 1974. It closed its first year of accounting on March 31, 1975. It made a claim for development rebate amounting to Rs. 2,20,885 in respect of machinery and furniture claimed to have been installed by it of the value of Rs. 15,12,593. The claim was made under section 33(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. This claim has been disallowed by the Tribunal. Hence, at the instance of the assessees, the following question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim of development rebate ?' 2. The relevant facts, as found by the Tribunal, are as follows : ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sk Ayyub Sk. Abdul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR126
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1991, out of 25 accused who were tried for committing murders of two policemen, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal (Shri S.S. Sawargaonkarkarkarkarkarkar), vide his Judgment and Order dated 15th & 16th December, 1992, convicted 9 accused, out of whom, accused No. 1 Sk. Ayyub Sk. Abdul was sentenced to death, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by this Court and accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6, 12 to 14 and 23 were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.2. The State of Maharashtra has filed Reference under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence imposed upon accused No. 1 Sk. Ayyub Sk. Abdul and has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1993 for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused Nos. 2, 3, 14 and 23 to capital punishment by modifying the impugned judgment and order suitably. The convicted accused have also filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1993 praying for acquittal.3. Since all th...
Ramrao Son of Govindrao Kadu Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR474
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In this revision application also the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has refused to make a reference, and accordingly intimated the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11-3-93. Since all the dates are not only stated in the impugned order but also stated in the petition on solemn affirmation, keeping this petition on the file of this Court would be unnecessary in the interest of justice. Because the reference is denied, the application is taken up on the basis of grant of rule after hearing the learned Counsel and the parties.2. In three revision applications i.e. C.R.A. Nos. 337/91, 338/91 (yesterday) and 1185/93 (decided in the earlier matter) observations in this context are already made. Repetitions are not necessary. The reasoning is adopted.3. On facts, the date of award is 31-3-92. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is served on 5-4-92. It appears thereafter, the petitioner made an application for certified copy of the Award on 4-7-92. How...
Dwarkaprasad Mandai Chapariya and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR454
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This is a revision application against the order dated 21-3-93 of the respondent No. 2 - Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati. At the stage of admission itself, I have heard Shri Gilda for the applicants and Mrs. Wandile, A.G.P. for the respondents. This revision application is being taken up for final hearing and decision in view of a short question as to whether reference should be directed to be made being involved forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel and the parties. Additional reason is that only yesterday a similar question is decided in C.R.A. No. 337/93 and 338/93, by me.2. By now, the approach of the Court with regard to making reference to the Court is crystalised. The courts have gone to the situation of realisation that before certain bars are required to be considered, when pleaded, the courts have to assure themselves as to whether the claimants are aware of their existing legal rights or previliges, which, by words, deeds or conduct, must be s...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR485(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first two of the questions are referred at the instance of the assessee and the remaining two at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the debentures issued to the public financial institutions was not issued to the 'public' within the meaning of clause (iv) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of clause 3(A) of the debentures trust deed, the Tribunal was right in holding that mere option to the debenture holders make debentures redeemable before the expiry of seven years ?' 2. At the instance of the Revenue : '(3) Whether, on th...
Raju Son of Krishnasingh Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR374
A.A. Desai, J. 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, taking resort to section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (the Act), by an order dated 18-1-1993 directed externment of the petitioner. It is impugned on the ground that the externment is without any authority.2. The impugned order mentions that the Commissioner of Police has in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, by order dated 3-2-1988 directed that his power under section 56 of the Act be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Section 56 has authorised the Commissioner of Police appointed under section 7 of the Act to exercise the powers enumerated therein. Section 10 authorises the State Government to appoint one or more Deputy Commissioner of Police. Sub-section (2) of section 10 reads as thus:'Every such Deputy Commissioner shall, under the orders of the Commissioner, exercise and perform any of the powers, functions and duties of the Commissioner to be exercised or performed by him und...
Smt. Shobha Prakash Lala Vs. Nandlal Hotchand Bhatija and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1993
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR21; (1994)96BOMLR253
M.S. Rane, J.1. This petition has been presented by the Caveator in Testamentary Petition No. 32 of 1992 inter alia claiming reliefs to the effect that the grant issued in the Testamentary Petition No. 32 of 1992 either be revoked or set aside and the petition be restored to file and be treated as contentious matter and certain consequential reliefs.2. The circumstances being sequel to the presentation of the petition are adverted to hereinbelow.3. One Bhagibai Hotchand Bathija since deceased presented the petition being No. 32 of 1992 seeking for issuance of probate of the last Will and testament dated 24th August, 1976 of Hotchand Mulchand Bathija her husband who died on 18th August, 1991. (Hereinafter for brevity's sake the Original Petitioner is referred to as deceased Bhagibai and Hotchand as deceased Hotchand).4. Certain dates will be necessary to be mentioned in order to properly appreciate the reliefs as claimed in the Misc. Petition herein.5. The deceased Bhagibai presented th...
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(69)ELT649(Bom)
Kurdukar, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated August 18, 1984 passed by Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (Exhibit P). The challenge in this writ petition relates to clause 8 of Imports (Control) Order, 1955. 2. It appears that in the year 1984 certain writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of clause 8 of the said Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and such petition were admitted. This petition also stood admitted accordingly. 3. Now it is transpired that it may not be necessary for the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity at this stage and we reserve the said right of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Bulchandani, learned advocate for the respondents took an exception to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that against the impugned order, appeal lies to the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports...
Bombay Goods Transport Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1993
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT521(Bom)
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the Notification No. 1 of 1990, dated 1st February, 1990 by which sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been amended. The petitioners also seek to challenge the Circular bearing No. 25/92/CX-8, dated 15th December, 1992 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, as also a Trade Notice No. 1 of 1993 dated 27th January, 1993 issued by the Additional Collector (Tech.), Central Excise, by which the procedure earlier prevailing to issue certified copy of the Gate Pass, where the original is lost in transit, has been discontinued. 2. By the above Notfn. No. 1/90-CE(NT), dated 1st February, 1990 the Central Excise (First Amendment) Rules, 1990 came into force. By the said Amendment sub-rule (4) of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules had been substituted and the substituted sub-rule reads as under :- '(4) A manufacturer of the final products shall submit to Supe...
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR438(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. This income-tax reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65 for which the corresponding previous year is Samvat year 2019. 2. The assessee-company herein is one of the leading manufacturers of bidis in the State of Maharashtra. Its head office is at Sinnar in Nasik district. The assessee has got a number of factories at Sangamner, Sinnar, Ahmednagar, Nizamabad, and other places and the villages surrounding each of these places. In all, the assessee claims to have 130 such factories. The assessee has several branches with the head office at Sinnar. 3. During the relevant year the assessee manufactured two brands of bidis known as 'cock' and 'camel'. For each of these brands it manufactured two sizes of bidis 'chalu' (ordinary bidi of the usual size) and 'lavangi' (short bidis). The assessee also sold in the market certain bidis known as chhat bidis. 4. Separate books of account for each of these branches were kept by the assessee. The bidis manufactured in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »