Mumbai Court July 1997 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Motichand Construction Co. (P.)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD260(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 29-6-1993 for the assessment year 1989-90. The ground taken reads as follows :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act is not attracted when the same has to be levied mandatorily pursuant to action under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for an erroneous processing of the total income under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, erred in deleting the additional tax of Rs. 6,653 levied on this count." 2. The Assessing Officer processed the return filed by the assessee on 7-12-1989 under the provisions of section 143(1)(a). At this stage, there was no liability for the payment of additional tax under section 143(1)(a) and as such, it was not charged. Subsequently, by virtue of an order under section 154 dated 30-12-1991, the Assessing Officer made certain addition, t...
Tag this Judgment!Vinit H. Joglekar Vs. Vaishali Vinit Joglekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom73; 1998(1)BomCR270
ORDERT.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. By the impugned judgment, a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was granted by the 2nd Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-607 of 1994. The appellant-husband married with respondent-wife on 8-2-1981 as per Hindu Vedic rites. Out of this wedlook, two daughters by name Radhika aged 11 years and Rajasee aged about 6 years. At the time of filing of the petition the main ground of cruelty alleged by the wife was that the respondent is hot tempered and very arrogant. He cannot get along with other members of family including father, mother or brother and he used to have constant quarrels with his family members and therefore they have shifted their residence at Ambernath. Even after the separate living, his behaviour has not improved. Again they have to shift at Virar in May, 1989 where the parties had purchased a flat from their joint income. Appellant continued to behave rudely and this was affecting the petitioner. The circumstances still wor...
Tag this Judgment!K. L. Steels Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas897(Bom)
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for a declaration to the effect that there is no valid agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 for supplies by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 of R. S. Joists as per the order dated July 8/10, 1995, on the terms and conditions contained in the tender being exhibit-B to the plaint. Further, defendant No. 1 is not entitled to call upon the plaintiffs to make supplies in terms of the aforesaid order. It is also prayed that defendant No. 1 is not entitled to invoke the bank guarantee dated December 3, 1994, and receive a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs or any other amount which is issued by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. There is also a prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from invoking the bank guarantee dated December 3, 1994. Permanent injunction is also prayed for against defendant No. 2 from making payment of Rs. 5 lakhs on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Steels Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR31
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs with a prayer for a declaration to the effect that there is no valid agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 for supplies by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1 of R.S. Joists as per the order dated 8th/10th July, 1995 on the terms and conditions contained in the tender being Ex. B to the plaint. Further the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to call upon the plaintiffs to make supplies in terms of the aforesaid order. It is also prayed that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to invoke the Bank Guarantee dated 3rd December. 1994 and receive a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs or any other amount which is issued by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. There is also a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee dated 3rd December, 1994. Permanent Injunction is also prayed for against the defendant No. 2 from making p...
Tag this Judgment!ini Express Worldwide Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT406(Bom); 2006[2]STR234; [2007]6STT252
1. Heard both the learned Counsel, Shri Seervai for the petitioners and Shri Desai for the respondents. 2. Petition has been admitted on 19th March, 1997 and rule on interim relief was issued which we have heard today. Challenge is to the imposition of Service Tax on courier agencies. The petitioners have challenged the legislative competence of the Parliament in respect of some of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance (2) Act of 1996. It is not necessary at this stage to go into the details of the controversy. An Affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Vasudev, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay raising a plea that the tax in question is a tax on services provided by the Courier Agencies in relation to the door to door transportation of time sensitive documents, goods and/or articles and not on the documents, goods and/or articles. It is therefore, contended that imposing the said service tax was well within the legislative competence of the Parliament unde...
Tag this Judgment!Virgo Steels Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR729; 1998(3)BomCR773
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. These nine Appeals are filed by defendants against orders passed by the learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend in the summonses for Judgment in three summary suits.2. (a) Summons for Judgments No. 425 of 1994 in Summary Suit No. 4510 of 1993:The suit is filed by the Bank of Rajasthan Limited against UCO Bank (defendant No. 1), Virgo Steel (defendant No. 2) and Krishna Steel Udyog (defendant No. 3). Virgo Steel opened an Irrevocable letter of credit dated 22nd August, 1991. The letter of credit was for the benefit of Krishna Steel Udyog (defendant No. 3) Defendant No.3 drew a Bill of Exchange dated 22nd August, 1991 for a sum of Rs. 49,50,000/- and presented all the relevant documents to the Bank of Rajasthan Limited (plaintiffs). The Bank of Rajasthan Limited forwarded the original documents, together with the Letter of Credit, to UCO Bank and sought a confirmation whether the documents were in order. UCO Bank, by their reply dated 27th August,...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Choklet Pawar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)415
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1989, convicting and sentencing them to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months, have come up in appeal before me.2. The prosecution case in short runs as. under :---Appellant Choklet Pawar is the father of appellants Suresh Pawar and Meetar Pawar. The victim Entivan Bhosale, P.W. 2 was sister's son of Choklet Pawar. There was enmity between the victim and the appellants because the former had refused to marry the daughter of the appellant Choklet Pawar about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident. Relations between them were also strained because before the incident, the victim was prosecuted for offences of theft, dacoity under the Bombay Police Act and he had a feeling that the appellants were giving information to the police against him.On 31st January, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Watch Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal challenging the Impugned Order-in-Original No.1/Commr./1997, dated 28/30-1996 (sic) of the respondent, praying for quashing and setting aside the same, and to hold that IGP Bezel is freely importable and for any other deemed relief.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures wrist watches. It has imported Integrated Gold Plate (IGP) Bezels through 13 post parcels worth Rs. 13,30,774.03 ps. at the foreign P.O. at Ahmedabad, which was supplied by M/s. CNS Fortune Trading Ltd., Hongkong. It sought for clearance as freely importable, which was not done by the Customs Deptt, on 20-6-1996, a letter was addressed clarifying that IGP Bezel is a watch part and not consumer goods and hence freely importable. On 26-6-1996 show cause notice was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why 4731 pieces of IGP Bezel should not be confiscated under Section 111(d), and why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hind Filters Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR207(Bom)
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing investment allowance under s. 32A in respect of plant and machinery used in manufacturing the cigarette filter rod of the Eleventh Schedule ?' 2. The reference pertains to the asst. yr. 1982-83. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this reference can be narrated as follows : The assessee-company manufactures cigarette filter rods. It claimed investment allowance under s. 32A of the Act of Rs. 46,071 on the plant and machinery worth Rs. 1,84,286. Rejecting the claim of the investment allowance with respect to a pedestal fan costing Rs. 1,650, and a deep chilling machine costing Rs. 8,150, the ITO allowed investment allowance on the balance cost of plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 1,74,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.P. Malhotra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]229ITR394(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing deduction under Section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee resigned from the employment as per the salary certificate issued by the employer, viz., Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He was an employee of the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee resigned from his service with effect from July 29, 1981. In the assessment of his income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the above assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »