Mumbai Court February 1996 Judgments
Tata Unisys Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD334(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and has raised four grounds.2. Ground No. 4 concerning the CIT(A)'s refusal to admit the ground of cash compensatory support of Rs. 20,00,000 received from the Government of India was not pressed during the hearing and accordingly this ground is dismissed.3. In so far as ground No. 1 is concerned, i.e., salary to the drivers and vehicle taxes should not be considered for purpose of disallowance under s. 37(3A), we have been consistently taking the view that salary paid to the drivers as well as motor car taxes are allowable under s.37 and accordingly these could be considered for purpose of disallowance under s. 37(3A). We accordingly confirm the disallowance in so far as it relates to salary of drivers and motor car taxes.4. The second issue relates to disallowance by applying the provisions of s. 37(3A) r/w s. 37(3B) (iii) treating the amounts expended by the employees of the company while carr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Wamanrao Kadam Bordikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR658
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.2. These two writ petitions have brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 17 of 1995, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Ordinance, 1995. By an amendment, the petitioners have also brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1996, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Act, 1996, which makes similar provisions to that of Ordinance No. 17 of 1995.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5484 of 1995 is the Chairman of Jintur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jintur and was the Chairman of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bombay, for several years. He is also the Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elected on Congress ticket and alleges that since the new Government came into power after the 1995 elections, several attempts a...
Tag this Judgment!Arun S/O Rambhau Musale and anr. Vs. Sambha Soma Gond (Deleted) and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR600
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The moot question in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the application filed under section 49-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') by the ousted tenant for transfer of possession and ownership right is required to be filed within the limitation of six months as prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Limitation Act by virtue of sections 100(12A), 101 and 102 of the Tenancy Act. The answer would obviously depend upon the construction of sections 49-B, 100 (12A), 101 and 102 of the Tenancy Act and the provisions of the Mamlatdars Courts Act, 1906.2. Facts first, and there is no dispute that the primary requirements for transfer of possession and ownership rights to Sambha son of Soma Gond (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-I, and hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') were s...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Unisys Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mumbai)193
ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A. M :The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and has raised four grounds.2. Ground No. 4 concerning the CIT(A)s refusal to admit the ground of cash compensatory support of Rs. 20,00,000 received from the Government of India was not pressed during the hearing and accordingly this ground is dismissed.3. In so far as ground No. 1 is concerned, i.e., salary to the drivers and vehicle taxes should not be considered for purpose of disallowance under s. 37(3A), we have been consistently taking the view that salary paid to the drivers as well as motor car taxes are allowable under s. 37 and accordingly these could be considered for purpose of disallowance under s. 37(3A). We accordingly confirm the disallowance in so far as it relates to salary of drivers and motor car taxes.4. The second issue relates to disallowance by applying the provisions of s. 37(3A) r/w s. 37(3B) (iii) treating the amounts expended by the employe...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Deepak Muchala Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Mumbai)524
ORDERV. DONGZATHANG, VICE-PRESIDENT :This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A).2. The assessee in this case is an individual and a doctor (dentist by profession). During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee took loans aggregating to Rs. 94,400, i.e., Rs. 63,000 from Shri Kishore Muchala, Rs. 20,000 from Ms. Umaben Muchala and Rs. 11,400 from Shri Jayesh Goel. The AO initiated proceedings under s. 271-D r/w s. 269-SS of the IT Act, 1961. It was explained before the AO that the assessee took the loans because he booked a flat with Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 4,21,000, for which he had to make deposit to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000. Over and above, he made arrangement with M/s Status Enterprises for the purchase of a dental chair, for which he was required to keep ready money. The assessee also had to make payments for various purchases of instruments for the clinic. Since the loans were genuin...
Tag this Judgment!Nusli N. Wadia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mumbai)88
ORDERPer M. K. Chaturvedi (JM). - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) VIII, Bombay, and pertains to the assessment year 1984-85.2. Briefly the facts : By an Indenture dated the 30th January, 1947, Sir Nusserwanjee Nowrosjee Wadia (also known as 'Sir Ness Wadia') created an irrevocable trust for the benefit of Neville Ness Wadia and his children by settling 1001 fully paid ordinary shares of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Para 2 of the Trust Deed reads as under :'2. THE TRUSTEES shall stand and be possessed of the Neville Ness trust Fund No. 2 and of the dividends interest and income to be derived therefrom upon the following trusts that is to say -(a) Upon trust in the first place to reimburse themselves and to pay and discharge all costs, charges and expenses incurred in or about the administration of the trusts of these presents;(b) Subject thereto to pay the residue to such dividends, interest and income of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas S/O. Ajab Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through P.S.O., Pol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ122
1. The accused/appellant challenges his conviction for offence under Section 3(1)((x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as also for the offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused/appellant who was posed as accused No. 1 in the trial was challenged along with three other accused persons, namely, Ganesh, Sanjay and Ajab with the aid of Section 4 that he had criminally intimidated one Sau. Kusum Babarao Gawande with intention to insult her modesty. The accused persons were also charged for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act' for the sake of brevity). It is significant to note that in the charge the time mentioned is 7 a.m. at Sirasgaon. It is significant to note that though the charge is of uttering the abuses in filthy language referring even to the caste of the complainant Kusum, the charg...
Tag this Judgment!Premji Haridas and Co. Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT658(Bom)
1. The short point which involves consideration by this Court in the present matter is whether the conversion of Castor Oil (Commercial) into Castor Oil (BP)-British Pharmacopia, is a manufacturing process which brings into existence a new commercial product after the process of filtration. 2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows. 3. Since 1978 upto 1983, petitioners imported Castor Oil into Greater Bombay and after filtering the same, used the Castor Oil for exportation to various countries abroad as Castor Oil (BP). Upto August, 1983, the Corporation refunded to the petitioners, the octroi duties paid in respect of the quota exported of Castor Oil (BP). However, after August, 1983, without giving reasons, the Corporation refused to refund to the petitioners, the octroi duty paid by them from time to time in respect of Castor Oil imported by them and exported as Castor Oil (BP) on the ground that the conversion of Castor Oil (Commercial) into Castor Oil...
Tag this Judgment!Julikhabi W/O A.T. Suphy and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR217
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking to impugn the order dated 6.12.1989 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 24-11-1987.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, urged that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 4-12-1989 is innocuous and as a matter of fact, no proceedings could have been initiated by the petitioners before the State Government against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 24.11.1987 and, therefore, he does not challenge the order passed by the State Government on 4.12.1989 whereby the interim stay order passed by it on 30-2-1982 was vacated. During the course of arguments, accordingly, challenge is confined to the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Amravati Dvn., Amravati on 24.11.1987 whereby the Additional Commissioner, in exercise of his powers...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip K. Kamat and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom224; 1996(5)BomCR170
ORDERA. P. Shah, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226, the petitioners are challenging acquisition of their land under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 ('Act', for short).2. The petitioners are owners of an area of 1 area and 3 gunthas out of Survey No.20/5B situate at Gokul-Shirgaon, taluka Karveer, district Kolhapur. On Nov. 17, 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. III, Kolhapur, issued notice under Section 32(2) v of the Act calling upon the petitioners to show cause why their land-should not be acquired for the purpose of establishment of the Gokul-Shirgaon industrial area. By the said notice, the petitioners were asked to remain present at the office of the Talathi, Gram Panchayat, Shirgaon on January 6, 1978 forpersonal hearing. Admittedly, the petitioners did not file objections to the proposed acquisition; they merely applied for an adjournment and thereafter did not participate in the proceedings at all. Finally, the Special Land Acquisition Officer i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »