Mumbai Court February 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. Dr. K.P. Prabhu and Dr. M.K. Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR365(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. The assessee and his wife had constructed a property in Kolhapur. During the assessment proceedings in the assessment year 1966-67, the Income-tax Officer ('the I.T.O.'), worked out the explained investment in the said property at Rs. 1,37,964 even though he was aware that the construction of the property had started in the year 1961 and was completed in the year 1966. Against the said addition, the assessee preferred and appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ('the A. A.C.') who, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as the material available on record, held that the investment made by the assessee and his wife was not Rs. 1,37,964 as worked out by the Income-tax Officer but is was Rs. 1,31,692. Against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee had gone up in appeal to the Tribunal contesting the addition made in the assessment year 1966-67. After having the parties, the Tribunal restricted the a...
Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)141; [1993]202ITR922(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J. 1. These are cross-references and two question each are referred to us by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee as well as the Revenue. The question referred to at the instance of the assessee are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that cash payments made by the assessee to its employees by way of reimbursement of medical expenses should be taken into account for the purpose of computing disallowable expenditure under section 40A(5) for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the-case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no weighted deduction under section 35B was allowable for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in respect of the commission amounts of Rs. 5,09,195 and Rs. 3,71,718, respectively ?' 2. The questions referred to at the instance o...
Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR595(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The present application relates to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. For the assessment year 1972-73, the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1972, while for the assessment year 1973-74, the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1973. The questions which are before us relate to the computation of capital for the purposes of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as on April 1, 1971, for the assessment year 1972-73 and as on April 1, 1972, for the assessment year 1973-74. The questions which are referred to us are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dividend amounting to Rs. 32,26,214 declared at the annual general meeting of the assessee on September 17, 1971, and paid out of the general reserves was not includible in the computation of the capital for the purposes of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, on ...
Subhas Bhaskar Gadre Vs. Second Labour Court and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1001Bom
Pendse, J. 1. There is no merit in this appeal filed to challenge legality of judgment dated June 8, 1990 delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2615 of 1987. By the impugned judgment the learned judge dismissed the petition and upheld the order dated April 29, 1987 passed by Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Bombay. The facts which gave rise to passing of the order by the Labour Court are as follows : 2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Librarian on December 7, 1968 in a Library which is run on the premises of the Central Railway at Victoria Terminus. The members of the Library are the gazetted and non-gazetted employees of the Central Railway. The non-gazetted members contribute Rs. 2/- every month, while the gazetted Officers Rs. 3/-. It is not in dispute that the Library is not run by the Railway Administration. It is also not in dispute that the Library is a Circulating Library in which magazines are circulated to the members. The library employs a cl...
Ratanchandra and Another Vs. Mrs. Suruchichand and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR76
Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. The Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 1991 (herein referred to as 'the Petition') has been filed by Ratanchandra and Gopichandra, two of the sons of one Mahesh Chand for declaration that no valid agreement of arbitration between Petitioners and Respondents 1 to 32 therein subsists and that the agreement dated 3rd January, 1989 is illegal void and unenforceable in law. Further declaration to the effect that the orders passed by this court in Arbitration suit No. 197 of 1989 and Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 1989 are not binding on the Petitioners. Interim Petition No. 184 of 1991 has been taken out by the petitioners in the said Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 1991 for interlocutory reliefs as prayed for therein. On 20th June, 1989, the petitioners had through their mother Jamunabai filed a suit, being OS Suit No. 1016 of 1989 in the court of Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that the said agreement dated 3rd January, 1989 is illegal...
Prem Alias Santosh and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR252; 1993CriLJ1608
A.A. Desai, J.1. By Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1992 original accused No. 4 Prem alias Santosh s/o Jivandas Satija has questioned the correctness and legality of the finding of conviction recorded for the offences punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 as also Section 392, 397 and 400 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to life imprisonment awarded on 14-12-1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and by Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1992, the State has claimed enhancement of sentence by awarding capital punishment. Similarly, by Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1989, original accused No. 2 Tejsingh Benishing and original accused No. 3 Kallu alias Samuel have challenged their conviction for the above said offences, whereas by Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1989, State has claimed enhancement of sentence by awarding capital punishment against them. 2. Precise facts leading to these appeals are as thus : In the morning of 21-4-1984 PW 1 Shankar found three injured persons lying near t...
Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3019; 1993(1)MhLj658
1. On 21st January, 1986 at about noon time Rukmini, the wife of accused No. 1, committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person. The incident occurred when none else was present in their house, at Aundha Road, Ambedkar Nagar, Khadaki, Pune. As a result of the said suicide the present accused, who are her husband (accused No. 1), mother-in-law (accused No. 2) and brother-in-law (accused No. 3) i.e. the younger brother of accused No. 1, were prosecuted under Ss. 306 and 498A read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order the accused have been acquitted of the offence under S. 306, I.P. Code but have been convicted for the offence under S. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Accused No. 2 has been sentenced to suffer six months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suf...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abbott Laboratories (i.) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR818(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 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 3,24,179 paid by it to Messrs. Ralph M. Parsons Co., of Asia was admissible as revenue expenditure ?' 2. Though the assessee did not make any application for reference, he proposed some questions in his reply to the Revenue's reference application, and on such prayer, the Tribunal also referred the following questions at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of legal expenses of Rs. 15,029 incurred for the purpose of the purchase of shares in other companies ?' 3. So far as the questions referred at the instance of the assessee without the same being raised by way of an appl...
inaroo Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Bom)93; [1993]204ITR312(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. These are two cross reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure admissible under section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act read with rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, had to be calculated for each employee with reference to the period of each trip made by him outside the headquarters and in thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs. 530 and Rs. 617, respectively, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's additional ground for deduction of its surtax liability in arriving at its total income because such claim had not been made before either the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant ...
Jagannath Bhagwandas Shrivastav and ors. Vs. Harish Thadani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR39; [1994(68)FLR540]; (1994)ILLJ15Bom
B.P. Saraf, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the three petitioners, whose application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,400/- each, by way of notice salary, retrenchment compensation and bonus for three years and leave with pay for 14 days was rejected by that Court on account of the existence of a dispute as to whether the petitioners were the employees of the employer concerned or not. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows : 'The petitioners claimed that they were working with the respondent No. 1 Evergreen Trades and Agencies (Exports) as Ironers since March 18, 1980 and their services were terminated on account of closure of the factory due to fire with effect from March 145, 1983. According to the petitioners, they approached the respondent No. 1 for the legal dues amounting to Rs. 8,400/- each on account of notice salary, retrenchment compensation, bonus, leave wages etc. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »