Mumbai Court September 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-ii, Bombay Vs. Dr. D.A. Ir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR877; [1998]234ITR850(Bom); 1999(1)MhLj775
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct, 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 in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the assessee's right of occupation as a tenant should be treated as a part of the cost of the Flat even though this right has merged in the bigger estate at the time of the purchase of the remaining rights over the Flat for the purpose of computing the surplus liable to capital gains tax?'2. This reference pertains to assessment year 1977-78, The assessee jointly with his mother held a flat in Shanti Kutir, Bombay admeasuring about 1,800 sq. ft. The said flat was originally taken on lease in the year 1962-63 by the father of the assessee for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. Since then it was in occupation of the assessee's fath...
M/S. Charkop Priya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Trade Well Con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR525; 1998(4)BomCR881; (1998)3BOMLR543; 1999(1)MhLj112
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners by this petition impugn award dated 20th December, 1995. The reference to the Arbitrators was made without the intimation of this Court. The Arbitrators constituting the Arbitral Tribunal have allowed certain claims in part as claimed by the respondents herein. The Arbitral Tribunal has also dismissedthe counter claim made by the petitioners against the respondents. By the present petition the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the award dated 25th December, 1995. The Award by the Tribunal is a non-speaking award.2. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended as under :--(a) There is an error of law apparent on the face of the record as the respondents were not a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act as amended in the State of Maharashtra and were thus barred under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act from meeting the claim. The claim petition of the respondents, therefore, it is contended had to be rejected. (b...
Smt. Anandibai Dattajirao Patil Vs. Dattajirao Dhondiram Patil and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR82; 2000(5)BomCR210; 2000BomCR(Cri)210; 1999CriLJ1061
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. She had made an application for maintenance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1880/83. The Magistrate found that she was neglected to be maintained by her husband. The first respondent had contracted a second marriage. The petitioner thereupon made a complaint under section 495 of I.P.C. and filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Because of the conduct of the respondent husband, in contracting the second marriage all along the petitioner was staying with her parents. The learned Magistrate has found on 19-1-1983 a compromise had been arrived at between the parties. On the basis of the compromise, it was agreed by the petitioner that she will stay with the first respondent notwithstanding his second marriage. On that understanding the complaint filed by her against him under section 495 and the application under section 125, Cr. P...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Reinsurance Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR968(Bom)
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (for short 'the Surtax Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion one at the instance of the assessee and the other 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 'premium reserve deposit' account should be treated as a 'fund' within the meaning of Rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and in consequently directing the Surtax Officer to recompute the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the premium reserve deposit account could not be considered to be moneys borrowed within the meaning of Rule 2...
L.M. Devare, Liquidator of Bank of Karad Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR813(Bom)
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the excess realised on the sale of immovable properties is assessable as income from banking business carried on by the assessee ?'2. The assessee was a limited company carrying on the business of banking. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68. The accounting years for the assessment years 196,3-64 to 1967-68 are calendar years 1962 to 1966, respectively.3. In the assessment year 1963-64, on May 24, 1962, the Presidency Industrial Bank Ltd., Pune (for short, the bank), was amalgamated with the assessee. This amalgamation took place in pursuance of the scheme sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.R. Squibb and Sons Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR1(Bom)
A.Y. Sakhare, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains should be taxed at Rs. 42,687 only as against Rs. 4,80,000 computed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ?'2. The assessee is a non-resident company. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80.3. On February 19, 1968, the assessee acquired 3,600 shares of Synthetic Limited (an Indian company), in United States currency at the face value of Rs. 1,000. On April 21, 1978, the assessee sold 600 shares to Prion Chemicals and Detergent Pvt. Ltd. The sale proceeds were received by the assessee in Indian currency and remitted to the United States in foreign currency.4. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E. R. Squibb and Sons Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Bom)89
ORDERSakhare, J. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following question of law for opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gains should be taxed at Rs. 42,687 only as against Rs. 4,80,000 computed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) ?'.2. The assessee is a non-resident company. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80.3. On 19-2-1968, the assessee acquired 3,600 shares of Synthetic Ltd. (an Indian company), in United States currency at the face value of Rs. 1,000. On 21-4-1978, the assessee sold 600 shares to Prion Chemicals & Detergent (P.) Ltd. The sale proceeds were received by the assessee in Indian-currency and remitted to United States in foreign-currency.4. Before the Income Tax Officer, the assessee disclosed in its return an inc...
Alex Perez G Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT701Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. This appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Customs imposing penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs under Section 112 of the Act on the appellant.4. The appellant was Bosun of the ship "M.V. Sinar Toba". When this vessel called at Mumbai, from Singapore the Captain informed the Customs Department that during his course of routine searches carried out he had found gold weighing approximately 70 Kgs in an empty grease drum kept in a cargo hold. The department after investigations, issued notice inter alia to the appellant alleging that the had brought the gold on board the ship in order to smuggle the gold into India.Appellant's protestations of innocence in reply has not been accepted by the Commissioner who imposed the penalty.4. The contention of the Advocate for the appellant that there is no direct evidence against him has to be accepted. The only evidence that is sought to connect him to the gold is the...
Pioneer International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)(107)ELT476Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When this application for stay of the proceedings was taken up, Shri Doiphode, learned advocate submitted that the main appeal may by itself be decided at this stage. Revenue having no objection, this was done.2. We have heard Shri Doiphode for the appellant and Shri C.P. Rao, learned SDR for the Revenue.3. The appellant imported 128 pieces of old and used engines.Examination showed that 23 of the engines were found fitted with Air Conditioner compressors. The Commissioner in the impugned order held it as the importers not giving a true and correct description of the goods. On this ground, he rejected the transaction value declared. He further held that second hand goods could not be compared with other second hand goods. On this observation he did not follow the method of determination of value under Rule 5 and 6 but determined the value under Rule 7. He observed that although contemporaneous imports of similar makes for equal number of the engines was Rs. 10,38,592/-, on this obs...
Shri Vaman V. Naik and Another Vs. the Administrative Tribunal, Gao an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR565
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The point for consideration which arises in the present petition is whether a Mamlatdar acting under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the said Act) is empowered to entertain an application for negative declaration to the effect that the opponent is not a tenant under the said Act. 2. The facts in brief relevant for decision are that the respondents No. 4 and 5 herein filed an application against the petitioners seeking a declaration that the petitioners who are the opponents in the said application were not the tenants in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 242 situated at Sancoale, Mormugao prior to the commencement of the enforcement of the Fifth Amendment to the said Act and even subsequent thereto. The application was filed in March, 1992. The petitioners herein while contesting the proceedings raised a preliminary point of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar, to issue such a negative declarat...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »