Mumbai Court January 2009 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.
Dorr-oliver (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]316ITR409(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The questions referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) are as under:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,80,518, Rs. 3,31,144 being part of the compensation and fees payable to M/s Dorr-Oliver Inc. of USA under the agreement of 1-1-1959 was not admissible as deduction in the computation of the assessees total income ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire amount of Rs. 19,21,847 and Rs. 7,22,526 being the compensation and fees payable to Dorr-Oliver Inc. of USA was deductible in arriving at the assessees total income ?(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the surtax liability being allowed as a deduction in the computation of its income ?(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri...
SachIn Sahebrao Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR924
1. These petitions have been filed by project affected persons whose services have been terminated pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7472/2007 Sunil Eknath Patil alias Chaudhar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(4) Bom.C.R. 653. Ordinarily, we would have directed the petitioners, who admittedly are Government servants, to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which we will presently advert to, we are of the view that these petitions would have to be entertained by this Court, despite an alternate efficacious remedy being available to the petitioners.2. The petitioners applied for the posts of 'Clerk-typist' and 'Talathi' in the cadre of Class-III employees pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17/8/2007. The petitioners were invited to appear for the written examination as well as the oral interviews and were declared successful candidates...
Smt. Gita and anr. Vs. Chandrashekhar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3499
ORDERR.C. Chavan, J.1. These proceedings by wife and husband respectively against each other raise a short legal point.2. It is not in dispute that Gita was married to Chandrashekhar, an, Advocate on 8-12-1985. Marital discord led Gita to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an application made in the year 1987. By an order dated 19-11-1992, Gita was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. In 1990, Chandrashekhar filed a petition for decree of divorce from Gita on the ground of cruelty. Decree of divorce was granted finality by judgment dated 1-3-2001 in Second Appeal No. 129 of 1999 decided by Aurangabad Bench of this Court.3. It may be useful to recount how this litigation proceeded. Petition for divorce by husband on the ground of cruelty was contested by wife, who also filed a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court rejected husband's claim for divorce and decreed wife'...
Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN578(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax to challenge the order passed by the ITAT on 3-7-2007 whereby the Misc. Application No. 360/2007 filed by the respondent No. 2 ('assessee' for short) has been allowed. By the said rectification order, a sentence in Para 15 of the original order passed by the Tribunal on 22-12-2006 has been substituted.2. The assessment year involved herein is assessment year 1998-99.3. In the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee had sought deduction of Rs. 1,60,83,071 under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) being the amount of bad debt which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. The said sum of Rs. 1,60,83,071 included the lease rentals amounting to Rs. 92,09,480 which were taxed in the earlier years on accrual basis, but claimed to have become bad debts on account of the assessee being unable to recover the said amount.4. By the assessment order dated 28-2-20...
Naresh K. Pahuja Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Bom)284
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his miscellaneous application arising out of ITA No. 3527/Mum/2003 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'J' Bench, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) on 10th July, 2007 [reported as Naresh K. Pahuja v. Dy. CIT ].3. The petitioner had filed his return of income for the asst. yr. 1995-96 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) declaring total income of Rs. 59,050 which was processed and accepted under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act without any adjustment. During the year under consideration the petitioner had received three gifts. The said gifts were credited to the petitioner's capital account. The business premises of the petitioner were subsequently surveyed under Section 133A and the statements of the petitioner and donor Mr. Kishan Punjabi were recorded.4. The AO issued notic...
Devdas Babu Shetty Vs. General Education Academy and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ19Bom
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge by which the learned single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent by setting aside order passed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal.2. The petitioner was a non-teaching employee in an unaided private school. He filed an application before the Industrial Court under Section 33(c)(2) for giving him benefits of medical reimbursement. Admitted position is that the conditions of service of the appellant as also of the other non-teaching employees working in unaided recognized private school are governed by Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Services) Regulations Act, 1977 and the Rules framed' thereunder. There is no provision made either in the Act or the Rules for giving reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by non-teaching employee of an unaided private recognised school.3. In this background, therefore, t...
Salem Mangnesite (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-iii
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN545(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is as under:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the write off of Rs. 4,58,500, being part of the loan advanced by the assessee to its fully owned subsidiary company, was not a loss incidental to the business of the assessee and, as such, not allowable?2. The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows:(a) M/s. Salem Mangnesite Pvt. Ltd., the assessee-company, was solely in the business of mining. It was not in the business of financing or lending money. It had a fully owned subsidiary company by name Janjira Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd., which was also in the business of mining.(b) In the year 1968, for the purpose of constructing a jetty, the assessee-company lent to its aforesaid subsidiary company an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs repayable with 10 per cent interest. In the years that follows, the subsidiary company Janjira Mining Co. Pv...
Mohan Kumar Rayana Vs. Komal Mohan Rayana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR308; 2009(111)BomLR979; 2009(2)MhLj868
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. These Appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2007, rendered by the Family Court disposing of two petitions being Petition No. D-65/2005 and D-66/2005 filed by the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband respectively seeking custody of their daughter Anisha. By the impugned judgment the Family Court has directed the appellant to handover custody of Anisha to the respondent immediately on completion of her final terms of the academic session 2006-07 and to provide her all facilities to enjoy extra curricular activities and studies so also to meet all the expenses including food and clothings. The appellant is given access to Anisha every alternate weekends and share 50% of her school vacations, as per mutual agreement with the respondent. The parties were also given directions to consult each other on the questions of Anisha's further academic education.Family Court Appeal No. 29 of 2007 has been filed by the husband (hereinafter...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Krishna Kapoor L/J of Late Ran ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN190(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. In both these reference as there is common question, they are being answered by this common order.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question.i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting addition of Rs. 2,28,62,000/- representing the value of assessee's rights in the films produced by him, by holding that, that right was in the nature of copy right exempt under Section 5(i)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act?3. We have heard the learned Counsel. We are concerned with the Assessment Year 1984.85. [of the The Wealth Tax Act,1957] (hereinafter referred to as 'Wealth Tax Act). Section 5(i) and (v)' [read] as under.5(i) Welath tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following assets, and such assets shall not be included in the net wealth of the assessee-(v) the rights under any patent or copyright belonging to the assessee:Provided that they are not held by him as assets of a business, profession or ...
Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)225; [2009]181TAXMAN233(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The three questions which have been referred under Section 27 of the WT Act, are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,99,750 under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (IT Payers) Act, 1974, constituted an asset under Section 2(e) of the WT Act, and therefore, includible in the net wealth of the assessee, for the asst. yr. 1980-81 ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,76,449 representing income-tax refund likely to be due on the basis of the returns filed, forms part of the taxable asset under Section 2(e) of the WT Act, on the valuation date?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that while applying provisions of Rule 1BB for valuing the self-occupied property, municipal rateable value has to be adopted instead of standard rent?2. Of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »