Mumbai Court June 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.
Warner Lambert Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR516(Bom)
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a charge was not created in respect of the preference dividend of Rs. 1,37,500 paid by Warner Hindustan Limited on the preference shares held by the assessee ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the dividend paid by Warner Hindustan Limited on the preference shares belonging to the assessee was diverted at source by an overriding title and, therefore, did not belong beneficially to the assessee and the same was not assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the prefer...
Shrikant @ S. Shankar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1999BomCR(Cri)10
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 26-9-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case Nos. 125/83 and 114/84, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. for the offence under section 392r/w 397 I.P.C. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :--The informant Ramdas Devram Mule P.W. 1 was working with Mazgaon Vikas Mandal which had milk centres in Mazgaon area. The proceeds of the sale of the milk of different centres used to be deposited at Worli Dairy, Bombay. On 25-10-1982, at about 8.15 a.m. he was carrying cash of Rs. 53,000/ - in a rexine bag for depositing at the Worli Dairy. The said amount was from the sale proceeds of milk. He had engaged the taxi bearing No. MRO 4036 from Mazgaon. One Akbarali Isaquali Shaikh was driving this taxi. The informant's taxi halted at Worli Naka junction on account of road traffic signal. It is said that the appella...
Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd, Vs. Comiussioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Bom)15
ORDERDR. B.A SARAF, J.By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this Court at the instance of the assessee for opinion.'(i) Whether the amount of Rs. 9,28,328 representing fee for use of manufacturing know-how and for necessary training of the applicant's personnel outside India, paid to Ciba Geigy Ltd., Basle, Switzerland, was allowable as a deduction for the asst. yr. 1974-75(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that surtax payable pursuant to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was not an allowable expenditure in computing the total income for the year under reference?'2. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the decision of this Court in IT Ref. No. 315 of 1983 [CIT vs. Yirloskar (1998) 148 CTR (Bom) 121 : (1998) 98 Taxman 112 (Bom) the controversy in the first question now stands concluded in fav...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goa, Daman and Diu Industrial Developme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Bom)606
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.By this reference under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, as the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the revenue.'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee fulfils the conditions for exemption under sections 11 and 13?'The following questions are referred to this court for opinion at the instance of assessee :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption in terms of article 289 of the Constitution of India?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee is not exempt under section 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot get the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.D. Pendse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)30
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J.By a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion, out of which question No. 1 is at the instance of revenue and question Nos. 2 and 3 are at the instance of assessee. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business carried on by the assessee in 'poultry farming' was an 'industrial undertaking' engaged in manufacturing and production within the meaning of section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim extra shift allowance in respect of :(i) Cages and equipment,(ii) California type sheds?(iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim double shift allowance in respect of machinery?2. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed ...
Hasmukh Nanji Shah Vs. Cc (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC206Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Hasmukh Nanji Shah has filed this appeal challenging Order No.S/14-4-275/90/PINT dated 13.12.1991 of the Additional Collector of Customs, preventive R & I Divn., Bombay, praying for setting aside the sum including the Personal Penalty imposed upon him and for any other relief as the nature and circumstances may require.1.1. The facts of the case are that on the basis of the information from the Income Tax Department, the officers of the Town Section of the Bombay Customs (Preventive Collectorate), searched the business premises of the appellant M/s. Modern Electronics on 22.6.1990 and recovered 937 compact disc of foreign make valued at Rs. 74,960/- C.I.F. and Rs. 2,24,880/- market value and seized, on the reasonable belief that the same was smuggled into India. They were earlier detained by the Income Tax Authorities. The Statement of the appellant was recorded on 22.6.1990,17.7.1990,19.7.1990 and 20.7.1990. The Statement of Babulal R. Agrawal was recorded on 20.7.1990, w...
Shankar Savala Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR243; 1998(4)BomCR140; [1999(81)FLR591]; 1998(2)MhLj894
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondents at length.2. The brief facts of this case are as under:-The petitioner had joined the police force of State of Maharashtra as a Police Constable on 14th July, 1958. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as a Head Constable w.e.f. 1st August, 1970. On 1st April, 1983 the petitioner was promoted as an officiating Police Sub-Inspector. The petitioner claims that the Director General of Police on 18th March, 1995 had issued an order promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Police Inspector. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the said order was not communicated to the petitioner and was also not given effect to. It appears that the petitioner had ultimately retired from the police service on 30th April, 1997 as a Police Sub-Inspector.3. After retirement the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Ap...
The State of Maharshtra Vs. Tanaji Dagadu Chavan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR84; 1998CriLJ4515
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since both these matters arise out of same set of facts and a common judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 1984 has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order dated 2-7-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. etc. Criminal Revision Application No. 380 of 1984 has been preferred by the original complainant against the said order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents. 3. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:- On 2-5-1982, there was marriage of the sons of Chandu Kondi and Dagadu Bhau in village Chavanwadi, a hamlet of village Borgaon, Tehsil Panhala District Kolhapur. A marriage pandal had been erected in front of the house of Chandu Kondi and Dagadu Bhau. Lezim was being played by some musicians as also by Pandurang Maruti and some others. Balu Maruti held a drum. The dec...
Vasant Bandoo Kulkarni Vs. YasIn Ahmed Mujawar Since Deed by His Heirs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR455
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner-plaintiff is the owner of an open plot of land admeasuring 30 feet x 18 feet situate at Somwar Petti, Karad, District Satara, which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'suit plot'. The respondent-defendant is admittedly a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the said plot and has been carrying on business of coal and firewood in a temporary shed constructed thereon by the respondent. The petitioner asked for the return of the suit plot by notice dated 6th February, 1974 as he bona fide and reasonably required it for erection of a building thereon. He also claimed possession on the ground of default in payment of rent. Since the respondent failed to comply with the notice, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad for possession of the suit plot on both the above grounds. The respondent resisted the suit and contended that he was not a defaulter. He further contended that the petiti...
Kirtikumar Dhanjibhai Shah Vs. Smt. Sudhalaxmi Mohanlal Jhaveri and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR15; 1998(4)BomCR486
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff, impugning the order dated 28th September, 1994, made by the IV Family Court, Bombay, dismissing the appellant's S.C. Suit No. 173 of 1986. 2. Though we are not concerned with the details of the case put forward in the appellant's suit before the Family Court, we may broadly indicate the case o( the appellant in the Trial Court. 3. The appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, alleging that he was the real owner of Flat No. 708-C, Poonam Apartments, Worli, Bombay, in which 1st respondent (appellant's mother -in-law) and 2nd respondent (appellant's wife) were residing and that he was the real owner of the suit flat and that respondent No. 1 being a Benamidar, had no right, title or interest therein. This suit was filed before the City Civil Court, Bombay on 9th January, 1986, and came to be transferred to the Family Court at Bombay. 4. While this suit was pending before the Family Court, with effect fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »