Mumbai Court January 1994 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. A.P. Trading Company
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD203(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) wherein he held that Section 43B could not be applied to the case of the assessee as he was only an agent and thereby he deleted the addition of Rs. 26,88,130 made by the Assessing Officer.The Revenue has taken several grounds to urge that the CIT(A) erred in his decision and he ought to have upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.2. The assessee is a Registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1985. Assessee follows Mercantile Method of Accounting. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee carries on business of import and export of iron, steel and pharmaceuticals both on own account andalso as agent of principals. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed outstanding liability for custom duty. The case of the assessee was that the liability related to agency business in respect of which the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Akshar Mudrak Industries Units Sahakari Premises Ltd. Vs. the Municipa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom105; 1994(3)BomCR516
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the additional demand raised hy the respondent. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC) on account of water charges for the period from 1-4-1982 to 30-6-1989 by way of supplementary bills.2. The petitioner is an industrial cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. I960. It owns a building situated at 42 G. D. Ambekar Marg. Wadala, Bombay. The said building consists of basement, ground and three upper stories. There arc in all 14 Galas and or units in the said buildings some of these galas are used for commercial purposes and some for the purpose of printing press. The petitioner society was assessed to water charges by the BMC in respect of the above building at the rate applicable to printing presses which is lower than the rate applicable for commercial establishments. In the year 1989. BMC having discovered that the water supplied to the above premises was used not only for print...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. K. Raj and Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2022
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Whether the product Ethanol AR can be classified as intoxicant or liquor as defined under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, is a short question which arises for consideration in the present petition. 2. The petitioners are a firm engaged in the business of importing and dealing in diverse laboratory chemicals for the past 30 years. One such product with which the petitioners deal is Ethanol AR, where AR stands for analytical reagent. The said product consists of alcohol of a very high purity i.e. 99.9%. The petitioners supply the said product to various parties which are :- (a) Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy. (b) Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay. (c) Indian Institute of Technology. (d) Institute of Immunohaematology. (e) Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Central Laboratory. (f) National Chemical Laboratories, Pune. (g) University of Pune, Biology/Chemistry Department. (h) Indian Association for Cultivation of Scienc...
Tag this Judgment!Cine Super 8 Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994LC180(Bombay); 1994(72)ELT20(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Whether documentary films and advertisement shorts of a width of 8 mm. manufactured and processed by the petitioners are exempt under the following Notification from the whole of the duty of excise leviable under Tariff Item 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is the question that falls for determination in this petition. 'Notification No. 210/76 dated 17-7-1976. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 63/60-CE, dated the 20 April, 1960, the Central Government hereby exempts cinematograph films, exposed, which are proved to the satisfaction of the Collector of Central Excise as being intended exclusively for the entertainment of children or for educational purposes, and cinematograph films of a width not exceeding 9.5 mm. from the whole of the duty of excise lev...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaysinh Gordhandas and ors. Vs. Smt. Mahdhuribai Wd/O Mahadhvdas Gov ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR542; (1994)96BOMLR883
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioners, who are the trustees of a charitable trust known as 'Dhanji Mulji Bhatia Nivas Trust', have challenged the judgment and order dated 26 November, 1986 of the Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No. 185 of 1986 holding, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 was a protected licensee/deemed tenant as per the provisions of section 35-A(1) read with section 5(4-A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act') in respect of the premises of the trust in her occupation and modifying the order of the trial Court accordingly.2. The petitioners are the trustees of 'Dhanji Mulji Bhatia Nivas Trust'. One Haridas Dhanji Mulji, under a trust deed dated 16 October, 1938 created the said trust and settled the property known as Dhanji Mulji Bhatia Nivas, 36/69 Cavel Cross Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay -2, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust property'). The said trust de...
Tag this Judgment!Limited and ors. Vs. Popular Constructions and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR414
M.L. Pendse, J.:1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the question which falls for determination in these appeals is identical. The question which requires determination is at what point of time leave of the Court to sue for relief which was omitted to be sought earlier is required to be obtained under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. To appreciate the question which arises, only few facts are required to be stated.2. In Appeal No. 509 of 1992, appellant instituted Suit No. 1334 of 1990 on the Original Side of this Court on April 21, 1990 for a declaration that the Bank guarantee dated January 27, 1989 in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs furnished in favour of respondent No. 1 is null and void and of no legal effect. The appellant sought injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking or recovering money under the Bank guarantee. The respondent No. 1 had submitted tender for grant of contract floated by Director Gen...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Vandana Fand anr. Vs. Mr. Subhash BenjamIn Borde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR403; I(1995)DMC183
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Several misconceptions require to be brushed aside, particularly by the trial courts while dealing with matrimonial proceedings which constitute a separate class of litigation. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the normal technicalities that are involved in the sifting and evaluation of the evidence and the degree of proof insisted upon in other forms of proceedings are required to be considerably diluted and modified and a more understanding and helpful attitude adopted in the handling of these matters. This is a field where the problem of physical and mental trauma is predominant, where the parties are under severe strain, handicaps and limitations; where the incidents are essentially of a highly personalised nature, often times very private and, consequently, where the evidence is necessarily restrictive. The general rules of corroboration, supportive evidence, etc., though applicable, are required to be mellowed down and the evidence of the parties them...
Tag this Judgment!Champaben Lavji Thakkar Vs. Lavji Hirji Thakkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC246
V.P. Tipnis, J.Shri Waghela learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1.By consent of parties heard forthwith.Heard parties.1. This is another off shoot of a very unfortunate matrimonial litigation between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband. Both of them are of advanced age and the litigation has been fought for quite sometime.2. The petitioner wife was awarded maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. She made an application for enhancement. The matter at one time had come to this Court had directed the Family Court at Bandra to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.3. As a matter of fact the application for enhancement of the maintenance bearing No. E-284 of 1989 was heard after recording some evidence and by order dated 15.3.1993 the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bandra had enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 500/- per month.4. Thereafter the husband preferred Misc. Application No. 37 of 1993 for setting aside the said order which was passed ex-pane....
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT135Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the orders in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (A), Ahmedabad as per the details indicated below :-------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Order in appeal Date------------------------------------------------------------E/294/89-BOM GSM-442/89-AHD 26-9-1989E/593/89-BOM 1402/89-AHD 3-7-1989E/714/90-BOM 279 to 281/90/AHD/Collr (A) 20-7-1990E/715/90-BOM (98 to 100/90/CE/AHD/CE)E/34/90-BOM GSM-2245/89/AHD 8-11-1989E/747/91-BOM 672/91(216-AHD) CS/AHD/Collr (A) 10-9-1991E/744/91-BOM 606/91 to 608/91 (162 to 164-AHD) 12-8-1991E/745/91-BOM CE/AHD 2. Since the issue involved in all the aforesaid appeals are the same, they were heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this common order. In the case of Appeal No. 294/89-BOM, the appellants are M/s.Anil Starch Products Ltd. where the issue was held against them by the Collector (A) and hence they have come in appeal, whereas, the rest of the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)(53)LC266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.S/10-122/85-H dated 26.4.1985 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay ordering confiscation vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, of the consignment comprising 20 cases of Carbide Tipped Masonry Drills with option to pay fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. The appellants imported the subject consignment and sought its clearance under Automatic Licence, pleading that vide para 31(2) of the Import and Export Policy Book AM 1984-85, they were entitled to import the items up to 10% of the value of the licence. The clearance was objected to on the ground that there was no correlation between the end product mentioned in the licence and the items imported and that the subject items were not capable of being used for manufacture of the end products. The appellants waived the Show Cause Notice, and on being explained the grounds of objections, came forward with the written reply pleading that the Automatic Lice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »