Mumbai Court July 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.
Yeshwant Dhondiba Khule and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR198; 2000BomCR(Cri)198
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. By the impugned judgment dated 16-3-1995 the appellants were convicted and sentenced (a) each for Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/- in default R.I. for six months for the offence under section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and (b) for Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 500/- in default further R.I. for three months for the offence under section 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C., in Sessions Case No. 115/94 of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. 2. The prosecution case runs as under :--- Appellants 1 and 2 are brothers. They are residing in the Tin sheds owned by one Tawaskar in Guruwar Peth, Satara, The deceased Nanda is the wife of appellant No. 1 Yeshwant Dhondiba Khule. At the time of incident, she was living in his tin sheet shed. Appellant No. 2 Hari Dhondiba Khule is residing in another tin sheet shed adjacent to the shed of appellant No. 1. His another brother Jalinder also residing another i...
Reliance Silicones (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1083Bom
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal declining to stay the proceedings which are pending before it on account of a reference made. The reference is for grant ofreinstatement with back wages to theemployees who are respondents.2. A reference made by the petitioner is registered before the B.I.F.R. Therefore, an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, was made. That application has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the present petition has been filed.3. The learned counsel relying on several judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court submits that the purpose behind enacting Section 22 is to keep the assets of the company intact. In the submission of the learned Counsel, therefore, since in the present proceedings, an order for reinstatement along with back wages can also be made, Section 22 will apply and the proceedings would be requi...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayanram Chetanram Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1999
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR641a
N.J. Pandya, J.1. All the three matters arise out of the judgment in Sessions Case No. 462 of 1994 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The judgment of conviction came to be delivered on 19th February, 1998. As there was a possibility of death sentence being awarded, at the request of the State and with the consent of all the sides, the matter was postponed and finally the order of sentence came to be passed on 23rd February, 1998. While awarding the sentence, not only the Accused were heard but on their behalf, their respective counsel were also heard and so was the Special P.P. appointed for the case on behalf of the State.2. The charges in the alternative were framed. Primary charge was of s. 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34; there was the charge under Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 120-B and in the alternative the charge under Section 342 read with Section 34; the charge under Section 397 read with 120-B an...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Build-India Construction Systems
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR638; 1999(4)BomCR719; (1999)3BOMLR490
ORDERS. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave under Rule 127 of the High Court, Original Side, Rules is granted to the petitioner to take out the Chamber Summons in terms of the draft Chamber Summons. Chamber Summons is made returnable forthwith. Respondent waive service. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner for condonation of delay infiling the Arbitration Petition No. 93 of 1999. The brief facts involved in this matter is that there were certain disputes between the respondent and petitioner. The said disputes were referred for arbitration and ultimately the learned Arbitrator passed an award on 29th November, 1997. It appears that on the very same day on 29th November, 1997 the learned Arbitrator had informed both the parties regarding publication of the said Award under section 14(1) of the Arbitrator Act, 1940. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator by his letter dated 31st J...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bachhraj and Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)74ITD174(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 19th February, 1991, for the asst. yr. 1989-90. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction under s. 80M because the provisions of s. 80A(3) do not mention s. 80M also because the whole concept of s. 80M is what is known as inter-corporate dividend i.e. earning of dividend by one company from another company and hence it could not include the case of appellant which has not received dividend from a company but as a share in partnership. Reliance is also placed on the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in (1972) 83 ITR 170 (SC)." 3. The assessee-company is a shareholder in a registered firm which derived certain income by way of dividend in respect of which it claimed deduction under s. 80M. The AO allowed the claim in respect of the dividend income of Rs. 1,13,13,252 derived by the assessee in respect of the shares held in its own name....
Synco Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)73ITD339(Mum.)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these appeals of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 involving common issue, by this consolidated order.2. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of oil and chemicals. It has a unit for oil division in Sirohi District, Rajasthan and chemicals division at Jodhpur. It had claimed deductions under s. 80HH and s. 80-I in respect of chemical division as well as oil division. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the gross total income of the assessee computed as per the provisions of the Act before deductions under Chapter VI-A (in view of the brought forward losses having been adjusted against income, was nil. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has confirmed the decision of the AO.3. The assessee is in appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the denial of deduction under s. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/S. Ruia Stud and Agricultural ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)BomCR428; [1999]240ITR312(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj848
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 ;"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that horses used for stock-breeding constitute 'plant' so as to be eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"2. This reference pertains to assessment year 1978-79. The controversy is whether the horses used for stock-breeding constitute "Plant" for the purpose of depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). The material facts are in a narrow compass. The assessee is engaged in the business of live stock breeding. For that purpose, it purchases and imports horses. These horses are not sold. The assessee claimed that the horses having been used for the purposes of its business constituted "plant" and, therefore, depreciation was allowable on the cost thereof under s...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/S. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR131; [1999]240ITR288(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj522
ORDERMrs. Ranjana Desai, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of revenue;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the reserve for doubtful debts and doubtful advances was a 'reserve' within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 and was, therefore, includible in the computation of the capital for the purpose of the said Act?'2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this reference are as follows :-For the assessment year 1976-77 the assessee company claimed that the sum of Rs. 7,04,278/- representing provision for doubtful debts and the sum of Rs. 63,315/- representing provision for doubtful advances should be included in their capital comput...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Smt. Prabhavati D. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR133; [1999]240ITR447(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj527
ORDERDr. 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 in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Municipal taxes of Rs. 28,687/- which pertained to the period prior to the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 for which relevant notice of demand dated 20-10-1975 in the relevant accounting year?'2. The controversy in this reference pertains to assessment year 1976-77, the relevant previous year being the year ended on 31st March, 1976. The assessee filed a return of income for the above assessment year on 9th September, 1976, disclosing total income of Rs. 38,970/-. The above total income included net income of Rs. 13,669/- under the head 'income from house property'. On examination of the return,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.N. Vas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR101(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, 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 in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs, 24,000 paid by the employer, Radiant Electric Machinery Co., for the purchase of single premium annuity policy on the life of the assessee cannot be regarded as a perquisite within the meaning of Section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently cannot be included in the assessee's income under the'head 'Salaries' ?'2. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this reference may be summed up as follows : The assessee was an employee of Radiant Electric Machinery Co. He retired from the employment of the said company from March 31, 1976. On April 1, 1976, the assessee entered into an agreement with the said company under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »