Mumbai Court June 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. Mathuradas Mulji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR668(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The following questions have been referred to this Court at the instance of the CIT Bombay, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the property in the 4/5th shares remained with the vendors although the vendors had handed over the share scrips together with the blank transfer forms to the guarantor 2. Whether, the Tribunal has rightly deleted Rs. 2,98,605 dividend income from the total income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is an individual, and the relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The crux of the matter is whether the property in shares held by James Finlay & Co. Ltd. passed to the purchasers. The assessee and his brother Ratansinh Mulji ('purchasers') jointly agreed with James Finlay & Co. Ltd., Glasgow ('vendor') to purchase the shares in three textile mills, viz., Swan Mills Ltd., Finlay Mills Ltd., and Gold Mohur Mills Ltd. at a total price of Rs. 94,82,181 by an agreemen...
Metal Distributors Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: 1993LC593(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT229(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 are a limited Company and carry on business as metal distributors and importers of diverse ferrous and non- ferrous metals. Pursuant to contracts arrived at between the petitioners and foreign suppliers during October 1979 and February 1980, the foreign suppliers shipped diverse quantities of goods, the total of which was 733.212 metric tons. The goods were shipped by different steamers and upon importation, the petitioners filed 26 bills of entries for clearance for home consumption. The goods were liable to payment of duty under Tariff Entry 73.03/05 and were assessable for customs duty at 30%, auxiliary duty at 5% and additional duty at Rs. 225/- per metric ton. The Customs Department claimed that the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1) and (2) and liable to pay customs duty at the rate of 220% per metric ton, auxiliary, duty at the rate of 5% and additional duty at the rate of Rs. 325/- per metric ton. 2. The goods were insp...
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs. Norbert Aguiar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR580; (1993)95BOMLR706
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. A short question that arises for my consideration in the present appeal is whether the instant complaint filed against the first respondent is within limitation or is time barred.2. The appellant is the Bombay Municipal Corporation, who is original complainant in the case. The premises belonging to the accused, being No. 1/44, Mankhurd village, Deonar, Bombay, was inspected by the Junior Engineer of the complainant on 15th July, 1983. A notice under section 248 (1)(c) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was served upon the accused on 25th August, 1983 calling upon him to convert the basket type privy into water type closets. The accused was called upon to carry out the work within 120 days from the date of the service of the notice. The notice further provided that for reckoning the notice period the monsoon period i.e. the period between 15th June and 14th October will be excluded while computing the period of 120 days granted to carry out the work. The accused...
Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawaharlal Dhawan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR984
M.M. Punchhi, J.1. The point which requires determination in these two appeals, arising from a common judgment and order dated February 15, 1991 of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Civil Revisions Nos. 2918 and 2919 of 1990 is, whether the payment of alimony is admissible without the relationship between the spouses being terminated,2. The wife-appellant was married to the husband-respondent on September 19, 1972 at Amritsar, in the State of Punjab. Three children were born from the wedlock and are at present living with their father. Out of them two are males, their respective years of birth being 1973 and 1980 and the third is a female born in the year 1976. On August 28, 1985 a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking divorce by mutual consent was received by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar purported to have been filed jointly by the two spouses. It was stated ther...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1993
Reported in: 1993LC42(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT72(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioners are a public limited company and runs a factory where various internal combustion engines known as diesel engines are manufactured. The diesel engines are used for various industrial purposes such as generating sets, shovels, oil drilling rigs, bull-dozers, excavators etc. A small number of internal combustion engines manufactured by the petitioners are used in dumpers. For the purpose of manufacture of diesel engines, the petitioners have been importing certain components from time to time, a list whereof is annexed as Exh. 'B' to the petition. The petitioners also import other components such as crankshafts, camshafts, turbochargers, governors, starters, belts etc. Prior to August 2nd, 1976 the said components imported by the petitioners were liable to customs duty under the provisions of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. At the time of assessment of the components, the customs authorities claimed that the components were liable to countervailing duty under I...
Kothari Optical Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1993
Reported in: 1993LC46(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT47(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Shri Sawant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that two out of the three questions arising in this petition stand concluded by decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in : 1987(32)ELT262(Bom) ) Ashok Traders v. Union of India and Another. The only contention which survives for consideration is in respect of notification dated August 2, 1976 issued by the Government of India under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The notification inter alia provides that the additional duty on imported articles specified in column No. 2 of the table annexed shall be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on the material specified on the corresponding entry in column No. 3 of the table to the extent that material is used in the manufacture of imported articles. Article set out in column No. 2 of the table is 'fabric containing more than 10 per cent by weight of synthetic fibre or yarn. 'The names of...
National Radio and Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1993
Reported in: 1993LC565(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT232(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 and manufactures various excisable goods like wireless receiving sets, office machine and apparatus, musical systems, watches, clocks and time pieces, calculators etc. The articles manufactured by the company are liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Items Nos. 33A, 33D, 33F, 44 and 68 of 1st Schedule of the Central Excise Act. The company was following the self removal procedure prescribed under Chapter VII-A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and was filing price lists from time to time under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules. On January 19, 1980 the company filed a revised price list in respect of goods falling under Tariff Items Nos. 33A and 33D, that is, in respect of manufacture of wireless receiving sets and calculators, claiming deduction on account of post- manufacturing expenses from the wholesale price to arrive at the assessable value. The claim for deduct...
Modern Woollens Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD154(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Ground No. 1 is reproduced below :- The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in confirming the 30% of the Book Profit under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determined at a figure of Rs. 47,43,691; as against the NIL Book Profit declared by the assessee in its return of income. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought not to have confirmed the said 30% of the Book Profit under Section 115J determined at Rs. 47,43,691.2. Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contains special provisions relating to certain companies. It is laid down in Clause (1) that where the total income, as computed under the Income-tax Act in respect of certain assessment years is less than 30% of its "Book Profit", the total income of such assessee chargeable to tax shall be deemed to be an amount equal to 30% of such "Book Profit". It is further provided in Clause (1A) that every company assessee shall prepare its profit an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Her Highness Maharani Vijaya Raje ScInd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR38(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Following two questions have been referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the CIT, Bombay City : '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that 2/3rd of the income from the Gwalior Estate for the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 was assessable in the hands of the HUF consisting of Sri Madhavrao and his mother and the balance 1/3rd of the income was assessable in the hands of the 'AOP' consisting of the legal heirs of the late Maharaja, Sir J. M. Scindia, and that no part of such income was assessable in the hands of Sri Madhavrao individually 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the partial distribution of the assets effected by the Administrator of the estate of the late Maharaja, Sir J. M. Scindia, on 1st February, 1968 was valid in law ?' 2. The ultimate question is whether the Gwalior estate l...
Ama Engineering Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC95; 1993LC529(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT69(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and runs a factory in which work of manufacture of nuts from steel bars is carried out. The petitioners also carry out work of grinding of steel bars received from the customers. The work of grinding is undertaken on job basis and grinding is done only to obtain bright steel bars. As a result manufacture of nuts from steel bars, some scrap falls out of process and that scrap is sold to the scrap dealers. The petitioners are liable to pay excise duty in respect of process of manufacture of nuts. 2. The Government of India published exemption Notification No. 80/80-C. E., dated June 19, 1980 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, inter alia, provided that certain excisable goods, which are described in the Schedule, Stand exempted from payment of duty. The Notification further provided that exemption shall not be available to manufacture - ' if the aggregate value of clearances of al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »