Mumbai Court September 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.
Pushpa Anil Sharma Vs. Anil Shivmurthy Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC583
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. Mrs. Pushpa Anil Sharma. the appellant herein filed a petition in the Family Court, Bombay under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act', for short) against her husband, the respondent herein, seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and a permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The respondent, in his turn, filed a cross petition seeking a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that his marriage could not be consummated owing to his wife's impotence. Alternatively, he prayed for a decree of divorce Under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of desertion.2. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant and allowed the prayer of the respondent for a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, however, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the appellant towards her maintenance with effect from the date of the filing of her petition i.e. July 2...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamani Tubes Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR271(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,334 under section 40A(5) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,85,093 on account of price difference paid for settlement of contract otherwise than by actual delivery of goods ?' 2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy involved in question No. 1 is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. : [1981]132ITR125(Bom) . In that view of the matter, we answer question...
Kamal Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT389Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of 2 years 3 months and 21 days in the case of COD-168/92 and 1 year 5 months and 12 days in the case of COD-367/92.The common reason given in both the cases is that the delay has occurred; because the Excise Clerk was not attending to these papers and subsequently he took away these papers from the factory, which were got back with the help of Ex-Mayor. They have also made a Police complaint against the Excise Clerk. Their factory is a small scale unit consisting of one Excise Clerk, who was employed as a part-time worker.Hence, the delay is mainly attributed to the Excise Clerk who was not putting up the papers to the proprietor and took away these papers from the factory, which were got back only on 8-11-1992. They filed the appeal in both the cases on 29-11-1992. In this context, the affidavit from the Ex-Mayor and also the copies of the connected documents explaining the aforesaid position have been produced during the hearing. The Department also conducted an...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wox Coolers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)(50)LC20Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The reference application is in respect of the order No. 1655/92-WRB dated 4.9.1992, wherein, this Bench allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of the Collector. The undisputed factual position in the aforesaid case is that the respondents filed a modvat declaration on 18:1.1988 and there is no allegation that some new inputs were received in April, 1988, when they started availing the benefit of small scale exemption up to Rs. 15 lakhs. Hence, availment of modvat credit during the period when they were clearing the goods valued up to Rs. 15 lakhs was kept under suspension. Thereafter they filed classification list on 26.4.1988. However, when they started paying duty after crossing the slab of Rs. 15 lakhs, they had taken modvat credit on the same inputs already declared on 18.1.1988 and the Department objected to this on the ground that a fresh declaration was called for. This Bench held that they had already filed a declaration and no new inputs are sought ...
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,44,469/- towards duty and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, vide order in original No. 33/CEX/93 dated 3.6.1993.2. The issue involved in this stay application is, whether paint, which has been brought in as input for use in relation to the manufacture of scooter, could be cleared as such, as a touch up paint by including the value of such paints. We take note of the fact that the South Regional Bench has already taken a decision that paint is an input and if it is cleared as such without being put to any use in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, modvat credit is not admissible. We are not prima facie impressed with the argument for taking a different view, since in such cases of removal of inputs as such without use in the factory, Rule 57F(2) is to be followed. Hence, we direct the applicants to deposit the entire duty amount of Rs. 3,44,469/- within a period of ten weeks from t...
Jitpan Holdings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD369(Mum.)
1 - Assessee is a private limited company. It follows Mercantile system. They held a significant bloc of equity shares of Orkay Silk Mills Limited. Their accounting period under consideration ended on 31st March, 1989.2. The assessee-appellant entered into an agreement on the 1st day of August 1986, with Devang Exports (P) Ltd. of Bombay, to enable the latter to invest in the shares of M/s. Orkay Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. for ensuring that the shares continued to be treated in the market at reasonable levels - both in respect of the volume of trading and their prices.3. The salient features of this agreement which is in the form of a communication and has been placed in the paperbook (at pg. 1 & 2} are that the assessee were to provide to the other party intercorporate deposits up to an aggregate of Rs. 16.50 crores, such deposits were not to carry any interest for a period of two years from the date of deposit; the interest was to be charged on or after 1st of October 1988 (no rate pr...
Amar Bahadursingh S/O Girijasingh Kushwaha Vs. V.P.D. Wasnik and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR414; 1994CriLJ1359
ORDER1. This is a Rule for contempt issued by my learned brother Mr. Justice Dudhat, J. calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of Court for having violated the order passed by the civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Bhandara on 18-12-1991 restraining the defendants/contemnors from giving operation to the order of the respondent No. 1 dt. 25-10-1991 which was also confirmed by the learned Additional district Judge, Bhandara on 13-3-1992 in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and in wilful disobedience of the orders passed by both the learned Courts below, issued a communication on 7-12-92, addressed to Management directing to continue Shri R. B. Deshmukh as In-charge Head Master during the pendency of petitioner's case. 2. Where the contempt does not occur in the presence and hearing of the Court, it must be brought to the attention of the Court by affidavits or sworn statements of the facts by the persons who witnessed them or have knowledge of the events. F...
Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)310; [1994]206ITR335(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 has referred the following question of law at the instance of the assessee for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for doubtful debts and the provision for doubtful advances cannot be treated as free reserves and cannot be included for the purpose of computing the capital of the company for the purposes of surtax ?' 2. The facts of the case are brief. The assessee is a limited company. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee made a provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 19,56,668 and also a provision for doubtful advances amounting to Rs. 1,20,933. In the course of the assessment of the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, it was contended by the as...
Lubrizol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR333(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 has referred the following four questions of law to this court for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liability in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 is not a revenue deduction while computing the total income of the assessee-company (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company is not entitled to depreciation on research and development expenditure in respect of the assets where full value thereof has been allowed as a deduction in the previous years in view of the retrospective amendment of section 35, even though such retrospective amendment is illegal, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law, for the assessment years 1976-77 and 19...
Sam Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)408; [1994]209ITR214(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 has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the export freight and packing expenses amounting to Rs. 4,01,018 and Rs. 2,26,989, respectively?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. This reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The controversy raised herein pertains to the disallowance of the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of two items of expenditure on 'export freight' amounting to Rs. 4,01,018 and the other 'packing expenses' amounting to Rs. 2,23,989. There is no dispute that all these expenses were incurred by the assessee in India. It...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »