Mumbai Court March 1997 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shailesh S. Shah
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)63ITD153(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue wherein the following ground of appeal has been taken : "On the facts and in view of the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,38,152 made by the A.C. on the ground that the addition is merely based on suspicion, even though, the seized paper No. 44 contained ample details of commission including exact number of pieces and labour charges on which when questioned the assessee was mum, without throwing any light on the transaction at the assessment proceedings, besides the transactions recorded in the paper did not tally with that of books, thus assessee avoided to furnish any correct facts/details. The explanation given before the CIT(Appeals) by the assessee is not satisfactory and also had not been given before the A.C. The assessee claims to have deducted his personal drawings out of the total profit of the firm to arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,38,412, which is not possible to believe as the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Turabai W/O Late Abdul Gafoor Vs. Smt. Goyandmina W/O Munuswami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR84
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.2.1983 passed by the 6th Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 437/1981. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Judge, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 1101/1978. Civil Suit No. 1101/1978 was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the landlady of the suit premises of which one Munuswami, of whom the respondents are the legal representatives, was the tenant. The suit premises are one room in House No. 249, Old Bazar, Kirkee, Pune. The decree of eviction was sought by the petitioner against the tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and that the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafide for her own occupation. The trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds. However, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Elektarosmelt Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC870Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 16.9.1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported what they claimed to be a complete CLU Process Plant for Steam Blasting for the production of stainless steels and other alloy steels. This Process Plant is based on the use of steam as the refining agent in order to achieve exceptionally low carbon levels. The Assistant Collector has held that what was presented for assessment was not a complete machine as such, but parts comprising Mas Mixing Station, Control Pulpit with instrumentation and Central Control Unit, necessary connections between the Mas Mixing Station and spare parts. Separate values for these parts were indicated in the invoice.The entire machine claimed to be a system, therefore, was not valued as such. Invoice only indicated separate values for the parts. These were therefore, held to be parts assessable to duty under Chapter heading appropriate to them. Their request for refund therefore, w...
Tag this Judgment!Transmissions Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT286Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise II, Mumbai made in the captioned Order-in-Original dated 13-10-1995, holding that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 178/88, as the appellants have used materials which is other than the materials specified in the notification. The ld. Commissioner levied a duty of Rs. 1,27,97,636.91.She also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the assessee.2. In order to appreciate the entire matter it is better to look into the facts as indicated in the impugned order. The assessee had manufactured copper zinc base alloys and copper tin base alloys falling under Chapter 74 of Central Excise Tariff and availed of the exemption provided under Notification 178/88, dated 13-5-1988. In terms of the said notification exemption from the levy of duty to copper products indicated in the said notification is available only when inputs under chapter 74 were used for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Mahadeo Tambada Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)71; 1997CriLJ2415
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 10th August, 1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 253 of 1981, convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302 I.P.C., has come up in appeal before us.2. The deceased Chintamani Tambada was the younger brother of the appellant. It is said that there was a dispute between them on account of land. The appellant was taking the entire yield. About six months prior to the incident, the appellant had come to the deceased with the intention to kill him. About two months prior to the incident, Chintaman Tambada had sold the grass and had appropriated the entire proceeds. Since no partition between the appellant and Chintaman Tambada had taken place, the former was angry with the latter.On 4th June 1981, sometimes between 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., Chintaman Tambada, his wife Kamubai (P.W. 2), their sons Sunil and Nandkumar were sitting in a small...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Harshadkumar Dalal Vs. Manibhai Jhaverbhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR673; 1997(4)BomCR1; (1997)99BOMLR263
A.P. Shah, J.1. This chamber summons is taken out by the defendants Nos. 2, 7, 8, 11 and 13 to 26 to direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to hand over possession of the premises in their occupation on the 6th floor of the building known as 'Shreeniketan', situate at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai on the ground that the respondent No. 1 has created illegal sub-tenancies in favour of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the alternative the said defendants are claiming for a direction to the Receiver to forcibly dispossess the respondents from the said 6th floor premises, if necessary, with the help of the police. The facts leading to this chamber summons are few and may be shortly stated:2. The present suit is for partition and possession of the property bearing plot No. F in Shiv Sagar Estate along with the building 'Shreeniketan' standing on the said plot. By order dated 13th February, 1978 passed in Notice of Motion No. 115 of 1978, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hardcastle and Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Bom)168
DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J. :By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the product manufactured by the assessee would not come within the ambit of the word 'paint' in the list of articles of Entry 26 of Eleventh Schedule and consequently holding that the assessee-company was entitled to investment allowance ?'2. The reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1980-81.3. Brief facts giving rise to this reference can be narrated as follows :The assessee-company installed new machineries worth Rs. 16,01,651 for the manufacture of a product, which is described as, 'Powder Coating'. The commercial name of the said powder coating is, 'Hawco Plast Powder Coating'.4. The assessee-company claimed investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961 on the cost of new plant...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Narang Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)63ITD72(Mum.)
1. The appeal filed by the Department and the cross-objection filed by the assessee relating to the same assessment year are grouped together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of facility.2. The grounds raised in the appeal filed by the Department read as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in - (1) allowing depreciation of Rs. 46,86,456 for the asst. yr. 1986-87. (2) deleting the addition of Rs. 20,995 on the ground that provision of s. 43B were inapplicable. (3) deleting addition of Rs. 1,83,701 made by the AO on account of replacement of old crockery. He ought to have sustained addition to the extent of its scrap value or sale price on estimated basis. (4) directing that the income of NMPL for the period 1st July, 1985 to 31st July, 1985, should be included in the hands of SIPL, on substantive basis instead of protective basis done by the AO." 3. On the first ground the fact with which the Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedmiya Ahmedji Vs. the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR81
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order passed by the 5th Labour Court in Reference IDA No. 94 of 1990 being Part-II Award dated 12-12-1989 by which the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct against the workman has been found to have been proved and looking to the nature of misconduct the Labour Court rejected the said Reference. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :- 3. On 6-5-1968, the petitioner was appointed as a Welder by the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (1st respondent herein). Prior to 1968, the workers working in the Welding Department were agitating because they were asked to do the work of x-ray testing which was risky and hazardous and which was not the work of a Welder. The said workers were also asking for a special grade/special allowance because, according to the worker in the Welding Department, the work of x-ray testing was not the normal work of a Welder. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Dadu Patil and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)62
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the same incident, and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment.2. Accused Ramhari Hasabe, Pandurang Dadu Patil, Krishnadeo Namdeo Shinde and Ashok Shripati Shinde were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli for an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1984.The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli convicted Pandurang Dadu Patil for an offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer one year R.I. Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 1984 has been preferred by Pandurang Dadu Patit against his aforesaid conviction and sentence.While admitting Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 1984, and granting bail to Pandurang Dadu Patil, Khatri, J., was pleased to issue notice for enhancement of sentence and Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 1985 arises out of the said notice.Crimi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »