Mumbai Court June 1999 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. I.A. and I.C. (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Bom)290
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, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for higher investment allowance even though the mandatory condition that the required certificate from the prescribed authority should be furnished along with the return of income, as laid down in s. 32A(2B)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, had not been fulfilled?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance in respect of expenditure incurred in provision of remuneration and perquisite to the employee- director of the company is to be computed under the provisions of s. 40(c) and not s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961? This reference pertains to asst. yr. 1980-81.2. So far as the controversy in question...
Shri Deepak Behl Vs. Dr. Narendra M. Rege
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR58
ORDERA.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Nashik in Complaint No. 69/956 directing the respondent doctor to pay in all Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant, in respect of the negligence in the medical treatment of baby Juhi, daughter of the complainant. We have gone through the judgment. We have also seen the documents and we feet that the approach of the District Forum had been totally erroneous in as much as the important point of jurisdiction has been totally ignored. Although, this appeal is filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation, the basic issue of jurisdiction has to be taken into consideration by the State Commission. If there was no jurisdiction in the Nasik Forum, the judgment is vitiated on account of jurisdictional error committed by the District Forum. This observation is based, in view of the fact that no appeal has been filed by the Doctor, against the order. The few facts are that the daughter of complaina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›