Mumbai Court March 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.
Ashok Kumar Farming Corpn. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)45ITD646(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against an order made under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act cancelling the registration granted to the assessee flrm.2. There was originally a firm constituted on 1-7-1979 with three partners, Ashok Kumar Gangoly, Kuldeep Singh Nanda and Arun Kumar Gangoly, carrying on the business of poultry farming and agriculture in the name of M/s. Arun Kumar Farming Corporation. That firm had been granted registration. The firm was re-constituted by a partnership deed dated 30-3-1982. The partners under the document were Ashok Kumar Gangoly, Kuldeep Singh Nanda, Arun Kumar Gangoly and Kuldeep Singh Nanda acting as promoter of a proposed company called M/s. Ashok Kumar Agencies (P) Ltd. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1982, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 11A for registration. The assessee also filed an application under Section 144A on 29-12-1983 before the IAC for a direction to the ITO to grant registratio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mazagaon Dock Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)327; [1994]206ITR260(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 has referred the following questions of law of this court for opinion 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 Kasara Basin Wet Dock constituted 'plant' and that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the expenditure incurred on excavation of Rs. 77,80,000 and masonry including R.C.C. work, etc., of Rs. 81,33,000 in respect of the said dock for the year under consideration (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dredging of the sea could be treated as 'plant' and consequently directing the Income-tax Officer to allow development rebate of Rs. 31,71,328 on the cost of the capital dredging (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Bom)223; [1995]216ITR437(Bom)
V.A. Mohta J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions 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 false ceilings and other accessories costing Rs. 2,65,240 were part of the 'fittings' and consequently in directing the Income-tax Officer to grant depreciation allowance thereon at 15 per cent. as against 2 1/2 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the chairs installed in the auditorium should be treated as 'plant' and in directing the Income-tax Officer to grant development rebate thereon for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee owns twin cinema theatres 'Badal' and 'Bijili', in the metropolitan city of Bombay. The business of exhibiting films to the public is carr...
Seth Jivatlal Purtapshi Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR574(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 assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), has referred the following question 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 capital gains amounting to Rs. 60,650 is assessable in the hands of the trustees and not allocable amongst the nine beneficiaries ?' 2. The assessee is a trust and has been assessed in the status of an association of persons. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, it had sold one of the properties of the trust thereby making a capital gain of Rs. 60,650. Besides capital gain, during the relevant assessment year the trust had also income by way of interest on securities amounting to Rs. 650 and interest from other sources amounting to Rs. 9,517. There is no dispute about the fact that under the terms of the t...
Mrs. Melanie Fialho and ors. Vs. Malcolm Francis Pereira and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR556; (1993)95BOMLR722
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners pray that judgment be pronounced in terms of Award dated 26th October 1990 made by Mr. Justice B. Lentin (Retired) and that decree in accordance thereof be passed and that the Court Receiver appointed by an order dated 24th July 1984 in Notice of Motion No. 1212 of 1983 in Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction Suit No. 13 of 1983 in Petition No. 490 of 1982 be directed to distribute the properties to the petitioners and the respondents as per decree in terms of Award and take all required steps including registering the decree in terms of the Award with the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances and make payment of stamp duty and other charges.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :(i) One Dr. Vincent Pereira died intestate on 2nd May 1981 leaving petitioners and respondents as his only heirs. On 31st May 1982 the 1st respondent filed Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 1982 in this Court for...
Dr. J.M. Mokashi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)73; [1994]207ITR252(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the income of the assessee's wife is includible in the income of the assessee under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a practising physician and cardiologist. His wife, Smt. Jayashree J. Mokashi, had passed first year Arts of the Bombay University and was employed by him as a receptionist-cum-accountant. During the accounting period, relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 8,100 to her by way of salary. This amount was included by the Income-tax Officer in the income of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 64(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commis...
Plas-fab. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR154(Bom)
V.A. Mohta J.1. The following questions are referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 4,10,648 being the sum claimed by the assessee as the amount embezzled by its former managing director, the late Shri P. N. Mehta, for the assessment year 1972-73 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal further erred in holding that the assessee's above claim of loss of embezzlement was not allowable as a deduction pertaining to the previous year 1971, relevant for the assessment year 1972-73 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in declining to admit and deal with the assessee's ground regarding its claim for deduction of the sum of Rs. 4,10,648 for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. Th...
The Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Bom252; 1993(2)BomCR615; [1995]82CompCas707(Bom)
ORDERPuranik, J. 1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith by consent of parties. Dr. Naik appears for the petitioners -- petitioner No. 1 being a Co-operative Bank and petitioner No. 2 being its Chairman -- while Dr. Chandrachudappears for Reserve Bank of India, respondent No. 3 and Shri Kerkar, Asstt. Government Pleader appears for respondents Nos. 1and 2.2. By a Circular dated 3rd August, 1992 issued by the Reserve Bank of India addressed to the Registrars of Co-operative Societies of all States and Union Territories in India, the Reserve Bank of India communicated that in so far as normal donations by Co-operative Banks from out of their net profits are concerned, such donations may not exceed one per cent of the published profits of the previous year and such normal donations together with those that may be made toNational Funds and other Funds recognised or sponsored by the State or Central Government may not exceed two per cent of the published profits of the previous year. The said Circula...
Arun S/O Shankarrao Deshpande Vs. the District and Sessions Judge and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR480; (1993)95BOMLR909
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the orders of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Akola i.e. the respondent No. 1 dated 1-9-1992 and 1-10-1992 refusing him permission to withdraw his notice of retirement dated 31-7-1992. He has also challenged in this writ petition the validity of Rule 66(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, 'the Pension Rules') applicable to the Government Servants. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Section Writer in the District Court, Akola on 5-7-1970 and was promoted thereafter as Clerk-cum-Steno on 1-8-1976. According to him, he had completed 20 years of service when he gave the notice of voluntary retirement dated 31-7-1992 in accordance with Rule 66(1) of the Pension Rules which provides that at any time after a Government servant has completed 20 years qualifying service, he can by giving a notice of three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, ret...
Pochanna S/O Patanna Chippawar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR657
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari so as to quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandrapur on 19th September, 1984, in Tenancy Appeal No. 2-59(28)/83-84, village Samda BK. and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 19th February 1988 in Revision Application No. Ten-A-46/85. By this petition, the petitioners have also sought stay of the proceedings for return of possession of the lands described in para 1 of the petition and a declaration that the orders passed in consequence of the letter dated 2nd January 1984 addressed by the Tahsildar, Chandrapur to the Talathi, Samda village (a copy whereof is Annexure A to the petition) and the mutation entries effected in pursuance thereof are valid.2. This litigation has a chequered history. Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has made a valiant effort ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »