Mumbai Court November 1998 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. Maganlal Chhaganlal (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)447; [1999]236ITR456(Bom)
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 question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80M on Its. 19,66,588 for the assessment year 1968-69 on the ground that the assessee is a dealer in shares ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing of drums and barrels, dealing in shares and investing in shares. The controversy is regarding deduction of interest on money borrowed for purchasing shares from the dividend income for the purposes of calculating deduction under Section 80M(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'). The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80M on the gross dividend income. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this claim. He allowed deduction on the net amount of dividend arrived ...
Jose Velho Periera Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1031Bom
J.A. Patil, J. 1. The petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of one year as a Field Officer in the respondent Bank on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into a contract of service dated July 25, 1967, which remained in force for one year from July 25, 1967. The said contract of service was later on renewed twice, first on August 3, 1968 and thereafter on August 25, 1969. The said contracts provided that on expiry of one year the same would stand terminated. On July 19, 1968, the Government of India nationalised 14 major private sector banking institutions, including the respondent Bank. Thereafter, the respondent Bank was reconstituted into a Government of India undertaking. Subsequent to the nationalisation of the respondent Bank, the petitioner was appointed in permanent service as a probationary Accountant/Officer, Grade IV with effect from August 6, 1970. At that time, another contract of service was entered int...
Gurbachan Kaur Vs. Karnail Singh Resham Singh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC686
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The respondent was tried for the offence under Sections 306, 304(B) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. On the complaint made by Smt. Gurbachan Kaur in C.R. No. 495/86 at Turbhe Police Station. In that complaint, it was alleged that her daughter Manjit Kaur was given in marriage to respondent on 19.10.1985 in Wagle Estate, Thane. After the marriage, her daughter was residing with her husband in the house of sister of her husband at Wadala. Thereafter, she was also sent to Jalandar alongwith her husband. She resided there for a period of four months and thereafter again she returned to Wadala. Thereafter respondent left his wife i.e. daughter of the complainant to the house of the complainant. After the intervention of certain middlemen she again went to the house of the first respondent. It is alleged that first respondent was harassing her and ill-treating her and insisting upon gold chain from her parents. He also used to beat the deceased under the influe...
The State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Shivram Salunkhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR509
T.K. Chandrashekhara, J.1. This Revision Application filed by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of State of Maharashtra challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri on 21.2.1992 quashing the proceedings of the J.M.F.C. Ratnagiri in A.R.T.O. Case No. 462/Ratnagiri/91. The allegation made in the complaint by the Regional Transport Officer is that the Vehicle No. MTJ/6729 belonging to the Maharashtra Transport Corporation was driven by the respondent at the relevant time or transporting certain goods belonging to the Corporation. At the time of plying that vehicle, it is alleged that it does not possess, the fitness certificate as envisaged under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act. On receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate issued process against respondent. Respondent then filed Revision before the Sessions Court, Ratnagiri and by the order impugned in this case, quashed the proceedings saying that the goods transported in the jeep belonging to the Transport Corporat...
Comessioner of Income Tax Vs. Shah Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)160
DR. B.P. SARAF, J.By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the 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, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of construction carried on by the assessee is an 'Industrial undertaking 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business of construction (of this industrial undertaking) is by itself not eligible to investment allowance under s. 32A(2)(b)(iii)?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's business activity is also business of construction of thing to be entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A(2)(b)(iii)4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dumpers used by the assessee in the execution of civil engineering contract work wer...
Cms Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC210Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal the question involved is whether certain computer parts or peripherals are to be included for the purpose of valuation for the purpose of Central Excise Act? 2. This is an appeal against the decision of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-I made in Order in-Original 32/92, dated 13-7-1992 whereunder he held that the cost of printers and monitors are to be added to the assessable value of the computer system. If so, whether the charges that they had during the material period resorted to under-valuation of the computer system could be held against them. He held affirmatively confirming the duty amounting to Rs. 23,04,866/- and levied a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs.3. Appellants are a private limited company registered under the Companies. Act. They are engaged in the manufacture of mini computers, micro processors based computer systems falling under Heading 84.71 of CETA. They had a licence from 1982. At that time the above items were falling under T.I. 33-D and when they ...
Ashok India Agro Products Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT68Tri(Mum.)bai
2. Appellant in E/3234 manufacture PVC pipes and appellant in E/3237 manufacture different class of electric fuse as parts and others are partners of these two firms. Each of them fixes on the products the brand name "Ashok India" in a characteristic writing and form. Notices were issued to each of them proposing denial of benefit of Notification 1/93 which they were availing on the ground that the brand name belonged to another person Chimandas Ashok Kumar Engineering Works and that therefore, paragraph 4 of the notification came in the way of the benefit of the notification. In reply the appellants took the stand that the products that each of them manufactured were different from the products traded by Chimandas. Whereas Chimandas traded in electrical motors (other than land vehicles) pumps, mono blocks, pump sets neither of the two appellants manufactured and traded in these goods. It is further contended that each of them had registered with the Trade Mark Registry of the Govt. o...
Earl Bihari Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC413Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal against the above captioned order dated 30-6-1998, praying for holding that the challan-cum-certificate of M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), endorsed more than once, as valid duty paying document, and the judgment pertaining to the erstwhile Rule 56A and gate pass is applicable to the SAIL's certificate and the deficiency in the duty paying document cannot be a ground for denying Modvat credit and the credit is not deniable, as there is no dispute about the receipt and the usage of the inputs in the manufacture of declared final products, so also the duty paying character.2. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures excisable goods falling under Chapter Nos. 73, 83 and 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), in their factory at Palghar in Thane district. They have availed of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 81,278/- on the inputs CRSS sheets based on the SAIL's delivery challan-cum-invoice-cum-certificate, contain...
Velerian Thomas Ferriora and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR453; 1999(2)MhLj447
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This application was filed for quashing the Criminal Proceedings in Case No. 123-P of 1992 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court at Bandra, Bombay. The main ground of seeking to quash of the proceedings set up by the applicant is that the said proceedings have been unnecessarily continuing by the trial Court without any sufficient reason, and the trial Court was merely adjourning the case by mere asking of the Prosecutor on flimsy grounds. It is alleged in the application that F.I.R. was filed against the petitioner on 24-12-1982, for an offence of theft allegedly committed of the goods worth Rs. 1,78,115.60/- and the police of Jogeshwari Police Station registered the F.I.R. as C.R. No. 861/82. The offence was alleged to have committed during the period from May 1982 to December 1982. The charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate of 10th Court at Andheri in September 1982. Subsequently, on 5-11-1985 the case has been transferred t...
Khiyashi Kachara Gosar and Another Vs. the Bombay Electric Supply and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR515; 1999(1)BomCR693; (1999)1BOMLR488; 1999(1)MhLj667
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Patel for the petitioners and Shri Choudhary for the respondents.2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the order dated 12th July, 1994, passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 1992. Under the said order, the order of eviction dated 8th May/20th May 1992, passed by the Competent Authority-respondent No. 2 in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for 'short, 'B.M.C. Act') has been confirmed. A few relevant facts may be stated.3. On 18th April, 1966 the premises in dispute belonging to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (for short, Corporation) being Shop No. 11-A block BEST staff quarters, Parel, Mumbai were allotted to one Virji Shah, on leaveand licence basis and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 255/- per month. On 11th July, 66, Virji entered into partner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »