Mumbai Court June 2000 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. K.E.C. International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: [2000]256ITR354(Bom)
1. The scope of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the point in issue in this appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of business tax which they paid abroad in Thailand. This was allowed by the Assessing Officer, on the ground that, in Thailand, there were two types of taxes, namely, corporate tax and business tax. As regards the corporate tax, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that it stood covered under Section 40(a)(ii). The payment of corporate tax is not in issue before us. Theonly point which arises for consideration in the present matter is: whether the tax paid on business by the assessee in Thailand was not entitled to deduction in view of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the Department.3. Learned counsel for the Department relied upon Sectio...
Shivanand Giridhar Naik Vs. the Senior Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4776
ORDERPratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original accused Shivanand Giridhar Naik, being aggrieved by the filing of the charge-sheet against him by Bhiwandi Police Station in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Bhiwandi in C.C. No. 653 of 1993, arising out of C.R. No. 233 of 1992 for offences punishable under Section 145(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.2. The allegation against the petitioner, as revealed from the charge-sheet, copy of which is annexed as Exhibits A and B to the Paper-book, are as follows :The petitioner Shivanand Naik is working as Police Constable Buckle No. 1069 at Bhiwandi Taluk a Police Station since 2nd August, 1990. The petitioner was given charge duty from 8.00 p.m. of 18th April, 1992 till 8.00 a.m., of 18th April, 1992. He was also responsible for forwarding the applications for leave for sanction and also of the registers concerning the general duties. At about 11.15 hours, when Police Sub...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Diners Club India Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)330
By The CourtThe short point which arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the department is: whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that income from dividends, profits on sale of investments and interest on deposits constituted profits from eligible business within the meaning of section 32AB of the Income Tax Act.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :3. The assessee is a club. The assessee claimed investment deposit account allowance as per report submitted under Rule 5AB. The assessee contended before the assessing officer that income from dividends and profits on sale of investments during of the relevant assessment year constituted profits from eligible business computed in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Income Tax Act. This contention of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer in view of the clarification issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Ultimately, the matter came before th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Acme Mfg. Co . Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Bom)280
BY THE COURT:The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in directing the Income Tax Officer to exclude the conveyance expenses and telephone expenses from computation of disallowance under rule 6D of the IT Rules.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the above question are as follows : The assessee was engaged in manufacture and sale of cranes. gas generators, etc. The assessee was required to furnish tax audit report. That was done, As per the report, the assessee computed the disallowance under rule 6D at Rs. 1, 52,372. However, in the course of verification of the details, the assessing officer found that the assessee has not included conveyance and telephone expenses within the computation of disallowance under rule 6D. Hence, the assessing officer computed the total disallowance at Rs. 3,08,746 instead of Rs. 1,52,372. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) w...
Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR1
Dr. Chandrachud, J.A CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 4.4 of the rules framed by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences governing admissions to courses in Health Sciences in the State. Rule 4.4, which is the subject-matter of controversy provides that a candidate seeking admission to courses in Health Sciences for academic year 2000-2001 would be eligible for admission only if he or she has passed the S.S.C. Examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. Rule 4.5 similarly requires as a condition of eligibility that every candidate must have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate or equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, seeks to impugn the validity of Rule 4.4. and it is with this challenge that the petition is concerned. At the outset, it must be clarified that Rule...
L.J. Kriplani Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs Vs. Manik Aditwar Pati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR281; 2000(4)BomCR366
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.M1. This petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27-2-1986 in Revision Application No. 171 of 1984. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor Shri L. J. Kriplani purchased the suit lands bearing S. Nos. 96/7, 96/12 and 96/4 situated at Majiwade, Taluka Thane sometime in the year 1950. Whereas the respondents are the successors in interest of one Shri Aditwar Patil who was in possession of the suit lands as tenant. The respondents initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for determining the purchase price in respect of the suit lands, being the deemed purchasers on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957. The said proceedings were initiated before the Addl. Tahsildar and A.L.T. Thane. The Tahsildar after considering the materials on record took the view that the respondents have failed to establish that they were tenants in respect of the suit lands on the til...
Gadhinglaj Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Limited Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR364; [2001(89)FLR139]; (2001)ILLJ683Bom
ORDERA. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-society has challenged the orders dated 11-12-1986 and 22-12-1986, both passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), Maharashtra & Goa, in exercise of powers under section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the said orders the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 88,155.75 and Rs. 816.20 respectively within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the impugned orders. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not deposit the amount as directed by the impugned orders. Consequently, the office of the Commissioner forwarded the papers to the Executive Magistrate, Tal. Gadhinglaj for recovery of the debts, as quantified in the impugned orders, as arrears of land revenue. The Executive Magistrate accordingly issued notice on 16-4-1987 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs. 88,971.95 within 7 days from th...
Smt. Swarnam Ramachandran and Another Vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom410; 2000(4)ALLMR368; 2000(4)BomCR616; (2000)2BOMLR847
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The learned Single Judge has decreed a suit for specific performance. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd October, 1994.2. On 18-2-1981, an agreement for sale was entered into between the appellants as vendors and the respondent as purchaser of a property comprising of a plot of land admeasuring 481.25 sq.meters bearing plot No. 423-C out of a larger piece of land bearing City Survey No. 1285 (Part), Plot No.423 of Suburban Scheme III of Chembur with a bungalow bearing Municipal No. 1137(2) standing thereon. Clause (1) of the agreement provided that the respondent shall purchase the property, in question, for a price of Rs. 10 lakhs which was to be paid as follows :---(i) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money by the respondent tothe appellants on or before execution of the agreement; (ii) A further sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was to be paid by the respondent to the appellants within two months from th...
BabadIn S/O BadruddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)BomCR782; 2000BomCR(Cri)782; 2001(1)MhLj502
ORDERS.D. Gundewar, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 14-9-1999, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati Division, Amravati, under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. Heard Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.G. Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3. The impugned order of externment dated 14-9-1999 was passed by the respondent after the show-cause notice dated 24-3-1999 was issued to the petitioner under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, calling upon him to file his say as to why he should not be externed from the concerned district for a period of two years. The petitioner filed his say in response to the said show-cause notice and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed on 14-9-1999, externing the petitioner from certain areas, as mentioned in the said order of externment, hence this petiti...
Suryabhan S/O. Rangnath Sarowar Vs. Divisional Soil Conservation Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR508; 2001(2)BomCR288; [2000(86)FLR807]; (2000)IIILLJ1044Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated December 8, 1998 in complaint (ULP) No. 610 of 1984 wherein the petitioner had made a grievance of unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, that he was continuously employed for a period of twelve years as temporary and that he was not made permanent, to deprive him of the benefits of permanency. The Respondent filed their written statement and contested the complaint. It appears that a preliminary point regarding the activities of the respondents, being industry, was raised. It further appears from the discussion in the judgment that the learned Member of the Industrial Court was misled and misguided by citing the amended definition of 'industry' in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an admitted position that the said amended definition of 'industry' has not been so far b...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »