Mumbai Goa Court April 2015 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.
Betts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circl ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. These petitions challenge two notices both dated 22/03/2011 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. 2. Writ Petition No.639/2011 challenges the notice dated 22/03/2011 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. Writ Petition No.640/2011 challenges the notice dated 22/03/2011 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. It is an agreed position between the Counsel that the facts in both the petitions are identical and even the reasons recorded for issuing the reopening notices are also identical save the quantum/amount indicated therein. Consequently the decision rendered in any one of the two petitions would equally apply to the other. In view of the above, for the sake of convenience we refer to the facts set out in Writ Petition No.640/2011 dealing with the assessment year 2004-05....
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.S. Dempo and Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. These two appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been filed against two orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T.A.T.') both dated 30 December 2005 passed for assessment year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 2. Both these appeals were admitted on 27 November 2006 on the following common substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the order passed by the CIT without giving any finding, whether the lease hire charges and refund of duty on export proceeds on other services, received by the assessee was operational income attributable to the business of the Assessee or not? While admitting the petition this Court had directed that besides these two appeals one more appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2006 should also be heard together. However, counsel for the parties state that the iss...
M/s. Macmen foods and Others Vs. M/s. Mohonsons Engineering Services P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This second appeal challenges the order dated 26 April 2005 of the Additional District Judge, Margao (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), by which the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') dated 30 January 2004 was confirmed and upheld. By the impugned order, the suit filed by the respondents (original plaintiff) seeking recovery of amounts due for work done was decreed by the trial Court and upheld in appeal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants (original defendants). The appeal was admitted on 29 March 2007 on the following substantial questions of Law: That both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court passed the Judgment and Decree overlooking the provisions i.e. Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act for the following reasons. (a) That the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disregarded and did not address themselves to the fact that there was no evidence on record ad...
Jose Alberto D'souza Vs. Felicia Leitao, (Owner) and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/original claimant against the judgment and award dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salcete, Margao, (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition No. 165 /2007, by which the claim petition of the appellant is partly allowed. The appellant was granted total compensation of Rs.95,225/- together with 9% interest. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 24.7.2006 at about 12.30hours the claimant along with his minor daughter and her schoolmate were proceeding to his residence at Macazane on his motorcycle. When they reached on the road between St. Alex High School and Curtorim Church, a Matiz Car bearing No. GA-02-J-8126 was proceeding in the same direction and it was behind the motorcycle. When the claimant reached the culvert existing on this part of the road and close to the house of one Mr. S...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Salgaonkar Mining Industries P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short), assails the order dated 17/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. The impugned order relates to assessment year 1997-1998. This appeal was admitted on 06/08/2007 on the following substantial questions of law: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.20,05,744/- being provision for doubtful debt on the ground, that the provision for doubtful debt are doubtful for recovery and therefore cannot be equated with liability, which is contrary to provisions of Section 115JA, by ignoring the finding of the CIT(A) that the entire provision represented advances towards sister concern and not trade debts and that it was an adhoc provision made towards advances of doubtful recovery and therefore cannot be treated as unascertained liability u/s 115JA ? B) Whether on the facts and i...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. A. Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16.04.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether when the Assessing Officer has himself computed the deduction allowable under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act at Rs.19,92,39,981/- was he justified in restricting the deduction that he allowed at Rs. 17,40,33,719/-? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a harmonious construction of Sections 80HHC, 80A(2), 80AB and 80B(5) could the deduction allowable under Section 80HHC be restricted to the extent of business profits and not to the extent of the gross total income as canvassed for by the appellant ? 3. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the above appeal points out that the question in the present appeal is whether once the Asse...
Darryl Bruce Thorpe and Another Vs. The Union of India, through the Mi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent returnable forthwith. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash: a) The communication dated 17/11/2014 issued by the Respondent no.3 - Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India (Assistant Director) to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Colva, Goa to freeze an Fixed Deposit of Rs.14.60 lakhs maintained by the petitioners in the bank; and (b) Show Cause notice dated 18/12/2014 issued by the Respondent no.2-Assistant Director (Adjudicating Authority) calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and the amount of Rs.14.60 lakhs being the fixed deposit with the bank of Baroda should not be confiscated under Section 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), respectively. 3. The petitioners are British citizens holding the status of persons of Indian origin (P.I.O) and Overseas Citizens of ...
Nitin Yeshwant Patekar Vs. Maria Luiza Quadros
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. By this revision application, the original complainant is challenging the judgment and order dated 05.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No. 101/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.10.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 112/2012, by which the learned Magistrate had directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the revision application, may be stated thus: That the first respondent is the owner of land bearing survey no. 280/1-A-1 of village Dhargal, admeasuring 5000 square metres. It appears that the first respondent had obtained a permission under Section 17-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act of 1974, for short), for filling of the low lying land. That permission was granted ...
Meera Sidharth Kambli and Others Vs. Viraj Ekawade, (rider of car) and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants/original claimants against the judgment, order award dated 9.3.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Mapusa, (Presiding Officer for short) in Caim Petition No. 53/2009, by which the claim petition of the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows:- The claimants i.e widow, son and daughter of the deceased Sidharth Pandurang Kambli have filed an application under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the matiz car bearing registration no.GA-01-R-1674. 4. It is contended by the claimants that on 1.6.2009 at about 13.10hours on NH17a Go...
Dr. Vijayraj R. Dessai Vs. State, Through PP, Central Bureau of Invest ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
1. Heard Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This revision application is at the instance of the original accused in Sessions Case No. 29/2014, on the file of the learned Session Judge at Margao. The revision application is directed against order dated 10.09.2014, by which the application-Exhibit-9, filed by the petitioner, for discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), has been dismissed. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the revision application may be stated thus: That the petitioner is a Doctor by profession and is serving in the Blood Bank at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. Now deceased, Archana Dessai was the wife of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and Archana Dessai was solemnized on 23.02.1996 and soon thereafter, dispute arose between the parties allegedly on account of non satisfaction of the demand of dowry. Accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »