Mumbai Court April 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.
Ramesh Singh S/O Sunder Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR138; 1993CriLJ2743
B.U. Wahane, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant/accused has challenged the finding of conviction under section 124, of the Bombay Police Act, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, vide judgment and order order dated 31-5-1990, sentencing the accused to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Since Shri Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, challenged the vires of the provisions of Bombay Police Act along with the conviction, this appeal has been placed before the Division Bench. However, the learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only in respect of the conviction, on two grounds. (1) No charge was framed under Section 124 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused/appellant was tried for the offence punishable under section 413 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. habitually dealing in stolen property, and under section 63 of the Copy Right Act. As the appellant was acquitted of both the ...
Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR383(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J. 1. These two cross-references, one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience. 2. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions : At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not admitting the additional ground filed by it in its letter dated March 29, 1977, that section 80J tax relief should be worked out from the assessment year 1968-69 computing the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J(1) at the gross value of the assets without deducting the loans and liabilities and that the relief thus worked out for the past assessment years should be adjusted against the total income for the assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not entertaining the assessee's additional ground ...
Babita Alias Tai Mohan Shardul Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ792
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. 1. In this appeal an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is under challenge. 2. The case of the prosecution, so far as it is relevant for disposal of the instant appeal, is as under : (a) In the morning of April 5, 1990, V. S. Salaskar (P.W. 7), a Police Sub-Inspector attached to Narcotic Cell of C.B., C.I.D. left for C.S.T. Road, Kurla to work out an information along with a police party which included Head Constable K. N. Panchmukh (P.W. 1), and a lady constable, two panch witnesses, namely, T. T. Jadhav (P.W. 2) and Mrs. P. R. Rajbhat (P.W. 3) and the informer. Reaching a place near a 'Buddha Mandir' on that road, they found a man collecting money from the persons who were coming to him and handing over something to them. They further found him handing over the ...
Asbestos Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR358(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following three questions have been referred to this court opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains arising to the assessee, a non-resident maintaining its accounts in the U. K. on the sale of shares in terms of Indian rupees rejecting the case of the assessee that as it has no place of business in India and it maintains its accounts in the U. K., the capital gains arising from the transaction should be first computed in pounds and then converted into Indian rupees for the purpose of taxation 2. Whether, even assuming that the assessee was entitled to first compute the amount of capital gains in sterling currency and then convert it into Indian rupees, the assessee was entitled to the determination of the cost of the shares for the purpose of deduction which is not the historical cost at the time of acquisition ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR196(Bom)
U.T. Shah J. 1. This reference pertains to three years, viz., assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65. There are two issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') at the instance of the Revenue in referring two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment years are 1962-63 to 1964-65 and the relevant previous years are the corresponding financial years ended on March 31, 1962, 1963 and 1964, respectively. 3. The first issue pertains to the assessment year 1964-65 and the question referred reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable to capital gains tax in respect of its 15,606 shares in Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd. on the amalgamation of S.E.S. Ltd. with Messrs. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. ?' 4. As we narrate the facts and they way the case proceeded before the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal, it would appear that the question as f...
Avdhut Shamrao Bhatkar (Deceased) Through L.R.S Vs. Bombay Housing and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR789
P.S. Patankar, J.1. Rule.2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners prays for deletion of Respondent No. 3 from this petition. Prayer granted.3. Mr. Rane, Advocate for the Respondents waives notice. By consent rule placed for hearing forthwith.4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions states that the Petitioners want to delete the name of Respondent No. 3 from the Short Cause Suit No. 3923 of 1986 filed by Petitioners and that they are not interested in claiming any relief against the Respondent No. 3. The learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no objection for the same. However, the Petitioners to file a formal application to that effect in the trial Court.5. The suit No. 3923/1986 came to be filed by Avadhut Shamrao Bhatkar, who expired on 27-12-1991. An application came to be filed on 15-7-1992 by the present Petitioners be bring themselves on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Avadhut Shamrao Bhatkar. However, the learned Jud...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Bom)448; [1995]216ITR690(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the purpose of directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer to this court, the questions which are set out in the application. The petition has been admitted only in respect of question No. 2, which is as follows: '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure on articles intended for presentation is not to be considered for disallowance under rule 6B(1)(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962?' This question pertains to the assessment year 1979-80. For that year, the Assessing Officer disallowed, in the course of the assessment, a sum of Rs. 10,905 by applying the provisions of rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules. This expenditure was in respect of articles of presentation or gift incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal has held that these pr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills (P). L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR932(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following two questions of law at the instances of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash allowances given to the employees should not be treated as 'perquisites' for the purpose of working out the disallowance under section 40A(5) 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 short-term capital loss suffered by the assessee was required to be worked out by considering the proceeds received on the redemption of preferences shares at 'nil' as the same has already been considered as dividend under section 2(22) of the Income-tax ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it is an agreed position that it is covered by the decision of this court in the c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travel Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR555(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer to this court the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is providing technical know-how as provided in section 80MM(2) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act ?' 2. The assessee, Messrs. Travel Corporation of India Limited, carries on the business of a travel agency. The assessee claimed weighted deduction in terms of the provisions of section 35B, as then in force respect of a sum of Rs. 47,33,229. The assessment year was 1979-80. This claim was made on the basis that the assessee was providing technical know-how to persons outside India. The Tribunal has allowed this claim. 3. Under the Explanation to section 35(1A) as then in f...
Siemens India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR83(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following three questions of law at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 76,68,177 standing to the credit of 'general reserve' as on October 1, 1970, was required to be reduced by Rs. 9,60,000 being the dividend declared from the general reserve at the annual meeting of the company held on March 19, 1971, in computing the capital of the assessee-company for the purpose of surtax as on October 1, 1970 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the sum of Rs. 60,00,000 contributed by Siemens Asia Investments A.G. before October 1, 1970, was to be regarded as a part of the paid-up capital of the assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »