Mumbai Court November 1994 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. Ocean Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)200; [1995]217ITR357(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 10,029 as maintenance expenses and Rs. 11,375 as depreciation allowance, for the assessment year 1977-78 in relation to the flats at Jupiter Apartments and Sunita Apartments, was not expenditure incurred on the maintenance of residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house, and was, therefore, an admissible deduction?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. In the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed maintenance expenses of Rs. 10,029 and depreciation of Rs. 11,375 on flats bearing Nos. 163 and 164 in Jupiter Apartments and one flat in Sunita Apartments at Cuffe Parade, Bombay. The Income-tax Officer allowed these clai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mumbai Khoka Utpadak Sahakari Kendra Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR836(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 question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in allowing a deduction of Rs. 57,539 under the provisions of section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, being 'service fund' credited for 1974 and 1975 in view of the approval of the gratuity fund by the Commissioner of Income-tax with effect from July 1, 1975 ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society. Its accounting year is the year ended June 30. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77, the corresponding accounting year being the year ended on June 30, 1975. During this accounting year, the assessee kept in its books an account called 'service fund'. The amount credited to this account was in fact provision made by the assessee for the purpose of payment of ...
Jewat Ladhubhai Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR399(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cancellation of registration under section 186(1) for the assessment year 1973-74 was justified in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration as it was not constituted by a valid deed of partnership and as the registration for the assessment year 1973-74 had been cancelled under section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The material facts relevant for determination of the controversy in this case are as follows : The assessee was assessed in the status of a registered firm consisting of two partners for the assessme...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Polyolefins Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT725Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Reference Application has been moved by the Revenue against the order of this Bench bearing No. 461/94-WRB, dated 15-3-1994, contending that certain points of law have arisen out of the order, calling for a reference to the High Court.2.1 The facts involved in the appeal decided by this Bench can be briefly stated as below: 2.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Rubber processing chemicals, for the manufacture of which, they bring in duty paid Mafron/Freon gas and claim Modvat Credit in respect of duty paid on these two items. Their contention that these two items are inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of Rubber processing chemicals was rejected by the department. The ground taken by the Department was that they are refrigerent gases and they are meant for the functional operation of the refrigerating plant, hence they cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. This issue came in appeal before us.2.3. We h...
Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)497; [1995]213ITR106(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 to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee : Assessment year 1975-76 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of section 144B (inserted with effect from January 1, 1976) are applicable to the proceedings for the assessment year 1975-76 and that the assessment order dated September 26, 1978, was not barred by limitation ?' Common question for both the years (1975-76 and 1976-77) : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of export inspection fees, trade discount on sales, interest paid to the State Trading Corporation of India and freight and forwarding charges for export of goods, consular fees paid to consulate and wages ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Deejay Hatcheries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR652(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. The following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 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 assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80J as an industrial undertaking 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the certificate given by the auditors under r. 18C in the course of assessment proceedings could be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction under s. 80J ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. It runs a modern poultry farm. The assessee collects eggs which are initially subjected to various processes like fumigation, cooling and incubation. These eggs are hatched by a mechanical process keeping the humidity and temperature constant as required. The chicks which are hatched out are given special food so t...
Shri Avdut Deuba Dessai Vs. Administrative Tribunal Goa at Panaji and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1994
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR207
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is a landlord who sought eviction of his tenants respondents 4 to 8 from the shop No. 241(1) situated in the property known as 'Tinto Bag'. Before the Rent Controller the stand taken by the respondent No. 3 is that though the original tenant was his father Shri Vassudev Damodar Kamat, after his death, he was running his office in the building as a tenant. The other respondents who are also the legal representatives of the deceased tenant Vassudev Damodar Kamat took up a stand that they are not the tenants and they have nothing to do with the building. For convenience sake, their statement is reproduced below. In paragraph 8 of the Written Statement, they say:---'With reference to paras 11 & 12 of the application, those respondents submit that these respondents never had any tenant landlord relationship with the applicant in respect of the suit premises and that the applicant was never the landlord of those respondents.'On the basis of the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravi Ratna Exporters
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)141; [1995]212ITR588(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', Bombay ('the Tribunal'), for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income derived by it from processing of prawns ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm deriving income from business of processing of prawns. In the assessment of its income for the assessment year 1980-81, it claimed relief under section 80J of the Act on the footing that it was engaged in the manufacture or processing of articles. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim of the assessee on the ground that the expression 'processing' did not find a place in section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri and Smt. Ganesh G.K. Azrenkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)158; [1996]217ITR148(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala J. 1. This reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By this reference, the following question has, at the instance of the Revenue, been referred to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the trust created by the assessee was valid in law, that there was diversion of income by overriding title, that this is not a case of application of income and that section 60 is also not attracted to the facts of this case?' 2. The assessee was a partner in the firm of Venkatesh G. C. Azrenkar and Co., Margao, Goa. On April 1, 1975, the said firm was reconstituted by a fresh deep of partnership with the assessee and his mother as partnership therein. The assessee had an 80 per cent. share and his mother had a 20 per cent, share in the profits and losses of the partnership. Seventy-five percent. of the 80 per cent. share which the assessee had in the...
Mazzanti Esposto Gian Carlo Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR185; (1995)97BOMLR144
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, dated 4th March, 1993, in Special Criminal Case No. 23/92, whereby the appellant/accused (hereinafter called 'the accused') was convicted for offences under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo ten years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- , or, in default, to undergo further one year Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The accused was charged on the ground that on 16th November, 1991, at about 8 p.m. at Blue Bird Restaurant, Vagator, he was found in possession of 46 gms. of charas without any licence or document, in contravention of section 8 of the Act and further, on the said date at about 9.20 p.m. when the search was conducted in his room, he was found in possession of 62 grams of charas, also without licence, in terms of section 8 of the said A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »