Mumbai Court March 1997 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.
Deniel Mathew and ors. Vs. A.L. Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR65
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a tenant's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 5th of August 1981 passed by the Appellate Court under the Bombay Rent Act in Appeal No. 267 of 1977, whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent. The Respondent had filed an Appeal before the Appellate Court challenging the judgment dated 5th of January 1977 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bombay in RAE Suit No: 2674 of 1972. The Respondent had filed RAE Suit No. 2674/72 for a decree of eviction against the petitioner. That suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 5.1.1997 of the Judge of Small Cause Court. The Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and decreed the suit for a decree of eviction against the petitioners.2. The original plaintiff i.e Respondent in the present petition - A.L. Fernandes had filed Civil Suit RAE No. 2674/72 before the Trial Court stating therein that the respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner w...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narang Hotels and Resorts (P) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mumbai)524
ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :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...
Avi Photochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT439Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether densitometer used by the appellant, in his factory for manufacture of photographic chemical is 'capital goods' within the meaning of Rule 57Q.3. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, has held that the densitometer is only used for testing and measuring chemicals used in the manufacture, and is not machines, machinery etc. used for producing or processing of goods or for bringing abovit any change in any substance. The write up of the commodity says that it is vised to check the densities of processed photographic film or paper in solutions where sensitometric tests were involved. It says further that densitometer is used to measure the density of various photographic processing solutions manufactured in the appellant's factory as a means of ensuring that the goods produced possess the required chemical activity needed for photographic process. The film or paper control strips are processed in mixtures prepared on the basis of this m...
Commissioner of C. Excise Vs. Inga Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT209Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals). By that order, he has held that while, by virtue of the provisions of Section 35B of the Act, order of the Assistant Collector has been appealed no notice demanding duty has been issued under Section 11 A. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the demand was barred by limitation.2. The Departmental Representative contends that this finding of the Collector (Appeals) is not acceptable in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar - 1996 (81) E.L.T.154 (Tribunal). In the case before that Bench of the Tribunal, notice had been issued under Section 11A for recovery of refund on the ground it has been wrongly sanctioned but provisions of Section 35E had not been resorted to. The Bench held, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in ITC Ltd. v. Union of India - 1988 (34) E.L.T.472 (Cal.) that Section 11A and 11B are independent provisions and their effect cannot be take...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›