Mumbai Court July 2001 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.
ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR401(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this appeal is as follows :'Whether the loss in respect of export of trading goods was to be ignored while determining the appellant's entitlement to deduction under Section 80HHC(3)(c) of the Act ?'2. To decide the aforestated question of law, the following facts are required to be stated.3. Facts : The appellant-company is an Export House, It holds a certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. To give boost to the export of goods and to earn foreign exchange for the country, the appellant was allowed to disclaim the benefits in respect of export goods manufactured by others (hereinafter referred to as 'supporting manufacturers'). This was in view of the fact that such supporting manufacturers were not good enough to market their goods on their own level. In this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1996-97. On November 28, 1996, the return of income was filed by the appellant de...
Padmini R. Bijoor and ors. Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR321; (2002)IIILLJ891Bom
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This petition has been filed by one Capt. R.M. Bijoor, the original petitioner, to challenge the order dated December 17, 1986 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing him from their services. The respondent No. 1 is a company governed under the Companies Act though wholly owned by the Union of India which is respondent No. 2. The original petitioner died during the pendency of this petition on April 13, 1998 and his wife and other heirs have come on record as petitioners in his place. The reference hereinafter to the petitioner will mean a reference to the original petitioner.2. The petition has been opposed by respondent No. 1 through the reply affirmed by one Shri K.K. Chakrabarti on June 29, 1988. One affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on August 30, 1996 to place on record the judgment and order passed by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad acquitting Capt. R.M. Bijoor from the prosecution. One more affidavit has been affirmed by one Shri T.B....
Barkatullakha Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2024; 2002BomCR(Cri)122; 2002CriLJ427
R.K. Batta, J. 1. The applicant was tried for rape of prosecutrix aged about 14 years, under Section 376, I.P.C. By judgment dt. 2-12-1993, the Assistant Judge, Khamgaon held the applicant guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default, further R.I. for 1 year. On the point of sentence, the trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that. Section 376 provides for a minimum sentence of 7 years, as also the fact that the prosecutrix was 14/15 years at the time of offence in question.2. The applicant was 35 years old and had 5 children. Taking into consideration all these facts the learned Assistant Judge, awarded the sentence as aforesaid. The applicant filed appeal against the said conviction and sentence, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by judgment dt. 11-6-1997 converted the conviction from one under Section 376, I.P.C. to 376 r/w Section 511, I.P.C. Accordingly he sentenced the applica...
ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Gajanand Meena, Deputy Cit and ors. (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Bom)582; [2001]251ITR416(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia J.Both the above writ petitions involve the same question of law. Both the petitions involve the same parties. Hence, they are heard together.By the above two writ petitions, the petitioner which is an Export House seeks to challenge a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the sake of brevity, the facts in Writ Petition No. 436 of 2001 are reproduced hereinbelow :Facts :(a) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations. The petitioner is an Export House. The petitioner exports self-manufactured goods. The petitioner also buys goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers and it exports the same as trading goods. The petitioner has also issued a disclaimer certificate in favour of the supporting manufacturers.The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on 30-12-1992. In its return of income, the petitioner claimed deduction of Rs. 1.46 c...
ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Gajanand Meena, Deputy Cit and ors. (No. 3)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR420(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia J.By this petition, the assessee-Export House seeks to challenge the impugned notice dated 17-3-1999, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by respondent No. 1 seeking to reassess the petitioners income for the assessment year 1994-95.The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows :(i) The petitioner is a company, registered under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and formulations.(ii) The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on 30-11-1994. In its return of income, the petitioner-assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3.08 crores under section 80HHC by filing along with its return of income, Form No. 10CCAC prescribed under the rules. The said form showed that the petitioner had exported goods manufactured by it as also goods purchased from others. The petitioner also filed along with its return of income, disclaimer certificates in favour of the supporting manufacturers of the trading ...
Haresh Mahadeo Kamble and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1297
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. In all seven accused faced prosecution before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, for the offence of gang rape in Sessions Case No. 223 of 1994. Out of them, accused No. 7 Ganesh Babu Jadhav was acquitted of all the charges and rest of the six accused were convicted and these six appeals have been filed by six accused i.e. accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively.2. We heard elaborate, detailed and exhaustive arguments of Mr. Mundargi and Mr. Chitnis learned advocates for the accused and the learned APP Ms. Usha Kejriwal. The case which the accused were required to face was as under :3. The victim in this case is Rambha Tukaram Pattekar, a girl aged about 15 years. Rambha was originally resident of Bhalivali in Parner Tuluka, Dist. Ahmednagar. Her father Tukaram was not doing any work and was also addicted to liquor and therefore she came to Shantabai her paternal aunt who was residing at Goregaon, Mumbai.4. Shantabai was residing in Zopadpatti at Goregaon with her son R...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›