Mumbai Nagpur Court December 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. The Akot Ginning and Pressing Fac ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-08-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The department has attempted to raise the following questions as the substantial questions of law in this appeal: 1] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon™ble ITAT has erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80P(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the alleged rental income computed @ 50% in respect of ginning and pressing charges received/earned by the assessee during the year? 2] Whether the Tribunal below has perversely appreciated the facts and law while upholding the order of CIT(A) and setting aside the order of the A.O., resulting in serious miscarriage of justice warranting interference at the hands of this Hon™ble Court? 3] Whether the authorities below were justified in reopening the proceedings merely on the basis of change of opinion? 4] Whether the authorities below were justified in placing the reliance on the judgments not relating to the controversy in the matter ...
Vidarbha Taxpayers Association and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, U ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petitioner no.1 is Vidarbha Taxpayers Association and petitioner no.2 is a citizen of India and is a businessman by profession. The petitioners, by way of present Public Interest Litigation, have approached this Court challenging the vires of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act?). 3. At the very inception, Mr.Shyam Dewani, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are praying for three alternate prayers : a) to declare that the Act of 2006 is unconstitutional and therefore, not enforceable, b) to read down certain provisions of Statute so as to make them workable and, c) to declare that the levy made by the Corporation is beyond the scope of the said Act and further that the same is being utilized for the purposes as enumerated in the said Act. 4. Mr.Shy...
Deepak Vs. Dy. Director (R) and Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Cast ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court mainly praying for the following reliefs: i. protect the services of the petitioner in view of Office Memorandum dated 10.8.2010 issued by Government of India (Annexure-10) and Kavita Solunke's case by quashing and setting aside the termination dated 25.8.2004 issued by the respondent No.2, i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Annexure-4) and reinstating the petitioner in the services as Lower Division Clerk, in the interest of justice, ii. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Annexure No.9) in the interest of justice.? 3. The petition has a chequered history. The petitioner came to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 6.6.1995 on the e...
Suresh Devidas Choudhari and Others Vs. Additional Collector Washim Ta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. In view of notice for final disposal, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04/09/2015 passed by the respondent No.1 allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 and setting aside the motion of no-confidence dated 12/03/2015. The respondent No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of respondent No.2 Grampanchayat. On the basis of a requisition for moving a motion of no-confidence against the respondent No.4, a notice dated 05/03/2015 convening special meeting on 12/03/2015 came to be issued. The notice dated 05/03/2015 was sought to be served on the respondent No.4 and the same was received by one Bhaurao @ Bharat Gulab Rathod. Thereafter the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was held on 12/03/2015 in which the motion was carried. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35(3B) of the said Act. Initially by order dated 04/06/2015, the respondent No.1 had dismissed the appe...
Shrikrishna Marotrao Thawkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the correctness and legality of the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No.162 of 1998 on 24.12.2002 is under challenge before this Court. (a) By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) On account of his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. (c) On account of his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Judge of the Court below has sentenced the appellant that he should suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, it is directed that he shall further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen ...
Sayeed Firoz and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In all these matters, the orders of externment passed by the respective Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati and Nagpur, under Section 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, are in question. 2. In Writ Petition No.693 of 2015, the impugned order is dated 13-02-2014 and it is passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Amravati city. The petitioner has been externed for a period of two years out of Amravati city and Amravati rural limits. The appeal against this order preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 07-07-2015. 3. In Writ Petition No.642 of 2015, the order of externment is dated 02-04-2014 and it is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati city, externing the petitioner therein from very same limits for two years. 4. In Writ Petition No.604 of 2015, the order of externment dated 22-01-2015 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Nagpur City...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›