Mumbai Court December 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 Wealth-tax Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Bom)461; [1995]213ITR1(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the wealth of the trust is exempt under section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assesses is the State Bank of India ('the bank') which has been assessed in this case as executors and trustees of two trusts, namely, (i) Trust Settlement of Apostles Raptakos No. 307, Bombay, and (ii) Trust Settlement of Apostles Raptakos No. 217, Bombay, in respect of the assets of those trusts. Both these trusts were executed by one Mr. Raptakos. The assessment years involved are 1967-68 to 1970-71. When the bank was sought to be assessed to tax under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the net wealth of the trusts in question, it claimed exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act...
Anz Grindlays Bank Plc., Bombay Vs. S.N. Khatri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR597]; (1995)IILLJ877Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this writ petition, Grindlays Bank seeks to challenge Award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 1st November, 1991 in Reference No. CGIT-11/1989 by which the Industrial Tribunal directed the Bank to pay 50% of the strike wages to the employees of the Bank for the period 5th November, 1979 upto 4th February, 1980. By the impugned Award, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the strike was illegal. However, on facts of the case, the Industrial Tribunal went into the justifiability of the strike and came to the conclusion that the strike was justified and, therefore, awarded 50% of the wages for the said period 5th November, 1979 upto 4th February 1980. The above Writ Petition No. 92 of 1992 is filed by the Bank. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 92 of 1992, the Federation preferred Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1994 challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the strike was illegal. The said Writ Petition No. 2551 of 1994 is fi...
Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Kamgar Union and ors. Vs. S.V. Kotnis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR236]; (1995)IILLJ541Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 are directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated 31st July, 1987, made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 20 of 1986 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') By these writ petitions the claims for reinstatement of three workmen, V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were allowed and the claims of another three workmen, P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde were dismissed under the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is filed by a registered Trade Union against the refusal of the claims for reinstatement of the three employees, while Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 is filed by the Employer aggrieved by the order of reinstatement of the three employees, who are Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in Writ Petiti...
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR514(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, J. 1. By this reference made under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000 by the assessee was a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax liability was not allowable as revenue expenditure? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under S. 35B of the IT Act, 1961, on Rs. 20,607 being the expenditure in respect of insurance, freight and inspection?' 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that controversy in question No. 2 as well as in question No. 3 above is covered by judgments of this Court. Learn...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vidur V. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Bom)343; [1995]215ITR30(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to 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 for the purpose of the valuation of the shares of Surat Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd., held by the Gargiben Trust, in which the assessee has reversionary interest, under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the amount of advance tax paid by the company should not be deducted from the amount shown as provision for taxation in the balance-sheet of the company 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that compulsory deposit is not an asset within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The first question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhara...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Master Asutosh K. Mahadevia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Bom)191; [1995]215ITR200(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether in valuing the shares of Surat Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Co. P. Ltd., the Tribunal ws correct in holding that the advance tax paid by the company should be deducted from the assets side as appearing in the balance-sheet of the company, while full provision for taxation should be deducted as a liability 2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to recompute the value of the assets represented by the balance-sheet in compulsory deposit account at discounted value of the balance as on the valuation date on actuarial valuation basis ?' 2. Counsel for the Revenue states that the first question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . Following the same, this questio...
Minoo F. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR578(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 assessee, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for the opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,07,767 was a capital expenditure?' 2. The assessee and his brother one E. F. Mehta were carrying on business at Bombay in partnership under the firm name of F. D. Mehta and Co., each having an equal share. This partnership was entered into on December 22, 1966. The business of the firm, F. D. Mehta and Co., comprised two concerns - one, a departmental store in the name of 'Great Western Stores' and the other, a unit engaged in the manufacture of chocolates, etc., in the name of 'Dr. Writers'. Both these concerns were situated in the same premises. In or around the year 1968, certain disputes arose between the two partners which wer...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR123(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 ('the Tribunal') has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal ought to have held that the dividend declared from general reserve after the first day of the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 At the instance of the Revenue : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision for taxation in excess of the liability finally determined is to be treated as a 'reserve' for the purpose of computing the assessee's capital in terms of the rules contained in the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 4 of ...
Swan Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR1(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, Bombay Bench 'A', Bombay, 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 provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted in this case and that the amount of Rs. 1,19,564 being the provision for gratuity liability claimed and allowed as deduction in the assessment year 1972-73, requires to be added as the assessee's income for the year ?' 2. The assessee is a company and this reference pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. In the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee had claimed and was allowed a deduction of Rs. 1,19,564 as gratuity liability on the basis that the amount represented the assessee's liability for gratuity for that year on accrual basis. Section 40A(7) was intr...
Amgauda Sidram Hakke Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Developmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR595; (1995)IILLJ948Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated February 8, 1991 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 81 of 1988, a proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner was employed in the service of the First Respondent from March 15, 1979. On August 31, 1983, he applied for leave for three days on the ground that he had received a telegram from his village communicating that his child was sick. He was sanctioned leave for three days, and after suffixing the subsequent two holidays of 3rd and 4th September, 1983, the Petitioner was expected to resume work on September 5, 1983. 3. Instead of resuming work the Petitioner sent a telegram, which was received on September 5, 1983, communicating that he was unable to attend work and requesting for extension of leave upto September 17, 1983. By another telegram date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »