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.
Rasheed A. Maskati and ors. Vs. Abbas Ali Hussaini M. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ331Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Petitioners who seek to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 18/19, 1990, in the above Writ Petition No. 3180 of 1986. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal, briefly are as follows : (a) The appellants are the trustees of Maskati Charitable Property Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The appellants, as trustees, are owners of immovable property known as Maskati Court situate at Churchgate, Bombay. The said building is occupied by tenants. In the said building, respondent No. 1 has been working as a liftman and as a motor pump operator from 1961. At the time of initial appointment, he was paid monthly salary of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/-. (b) Respondent No. 1 filed application No. 28 of 1985 in the Court of Competent Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the said application, respondent No. 1 claimed difference in minimum wages payable under Item 17 Part-I of the Schedule...
1. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Unichem Laboratories Ltd. (and Vice ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)64; [1993]205ITR33(Bom)
The judgment of the court was delivered by MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR J. -Income-tax Reference No. 233 of 1978 :This reference pertains to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The first dates of the previous years are October 1, 1971, and October 1, 1972, respectively. For the purposes of capital computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the capital has to be computed as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year.The directors of the assessee-company in their reports dated January 25, 1972, and January 20, 1973, recommended equity dividends of Rs. 5,40,000 and Rs. 6,30,000, respectively, from out of the profits of the years ending on September 30, 1971, and September 30, 1972. These were approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting held on March 17, 1972, and March 15, 1973, respectively.It was contended by the assessee that the recommendation for the declaration of dividend was not done on the first day of the previous year much...
Ashok Asumal Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR665; 1993CriLJ2818; 1993(2)MhLj1151
Saldanha, J.1. Certain features of some importance's relating to the procedure to be followed in Narcotics cases where seizures of very small quantities of contraband is made, as also the manner in which a Court would approach S. 27 of the Act for ascertaining as to whether the accused found in possession of the contraband can be said to have obtained it for personal consumption, fall for determination in this case. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant who has been convicted under S. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and awarded a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is alleged that on 16-6-1990 at about 10-35 a.m. the accused was apprehended by the Police authorities near Zulelal Mandir which is located adjacent to the Pimpri market. On his being searched in the presence of panchas, 8 pudis were found in his trouser packet and it was detected that the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR413(Bom)
U.T. Shah J.1. In this reference, the issue involved pertains to the assessee's claim for weighted deduction of certain expenses incurred. 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year is 1969-70 and the relevant previous year is the year ended on March 31, 1969. The assessee is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of electrical motors, aluminium and copper electrical machinery, electrical instruments, etc. 3. In the assessment, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of Rs. 36,63,463. Ultimately, the dispute was restricted to the amount of Rs. 18,32,262. 4. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following expenditure incurred by the assessee qualified for relief under section 35B : Rs.(i) Guarantee charges 5,98,228(ii) In...
Punjabi Ghasitaram Halwai Karachiwala Vs. Sahadeo Shivram Pawar and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR302; (1993)95BOMLR925; [1994(68)FLR528]; (1994)ILLJ1022Bom
ORDERB.P. Saraf, J. 1. In order of the Labour Court, Bombay, refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings before it is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The first respondent is a workman who was employed by the petitioner. In course of the employment, some charges came to be levelled against the first respondent on the basis of which a charge-sheet was served on him. A domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He was, therefore, dismissed from the service by the petitioner vide order dated 25-9-1984. 3. After his dismissal from service, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') which was referred to the Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. The Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. The Labour Court issued notice dated 1-11-1985 to the first respondent requiring him to file his ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Swastik Oil Products Mfg. Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD411(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the DCIT(A), for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The first dispute in this appeal is against the allowance of deduction under Sectin 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing ghycol ether in processing chemicals. The assessee purchased the following machineries which were put to use for manufacturing with effect from 1-1-1988 : Bill No. 87019 dt. 22-4-1987 1,59,120 Bill No. 87007 dt. 22-4-1987 48,880 2,08,000 -------- Bill No. 20062 dt. 10-9-1987 22,500 -------- The dates of placement of the orders are stated to be 3-6-1986,23-5-1985, 19-5-1986 and 1-6-1986 respectively for the first four items of machinery. However, no such date is given or indicated for the machinery appearing at Item No. 5. The assessee's accounting year for the impugned assessment year is from 23-10-1987 (Diwali) to 31-3.-1989. Though the entire machinery was purchased prior to 23-10-19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madhusudan Brothers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR921; [1993]204ITR74(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J.1. These two reference involving a common issue are disposed of together for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessment years involved are 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1975-76. 3. The common questions raised in these reference read as under : Income-tax Reference No. 158 of 1980 : '(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the shares beneficially held be charitable trusts could be said to be held by the 'public' (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the shares held by a nominee, being a public limited company, could be excluded in terms of Explanation 1 to section 2(18) when the nominee did not beneficially own the said shares (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the assessee-company could be said to be one in which 'the public were substantially interested' within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, stated that the issue involv...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramkisan Tapade and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR716(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 questions 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 assessee-firm was entitled to continuation of registration even though the requirement of proviso (ii) of section 184(7) was not complied with inasmuch as the firm had not furnished along with its return of income for the assessment year a declaration in the prescribed Form No. 12 and in the absence of any reason for such default ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The assessee field its return of income for the above assessment year on July 3, 1972. The assessee-firm was earlier granted the benefit of continuation of registration by the Income-tax Officer under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for ...
M.H. Daryani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR731(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether the expenditure of Rs. 23,137 incurred by the assessee in India of the carriage of the goods to their destination outside India and on the insurance of such goods while in transit qualified for weighted deduction under sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood in the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The dispute in this reference relates to the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of a sum of Rs. 23,137 incurred by it in India on the carriage of goods to their destination outside India and the insurance of such goods while in transit. The assessment year is 1973-74. The assessee is an individual. In the previous, year relevant to the assessment y...
Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. S.V. Naik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ1145Bom
Kapadia, J 1. Being aggrieved by the summary rejection of Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1989 by the learned Single Judge vide order dated November 6, 1989, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : (a) In March 1987, one Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamagar Sena (hereinafter referred to as the said Sena) filed Complaint (ULP) No. 350 of 1987 under item 5 and item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the said complaint, the Sena alleged that prior to February 1987, respondent No. 2-Company had engaged about 27 security guards. According to the said complaint, the guards were engaged by respondent No. 2-Company during the period 1980 to 1984. According to the complaint, in February/March 1987, without any prior notice, the said security guards are removed. In the circumstances, the above complaint was filed. The complaint proceeded to...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »