Mumbai Court September 1997 Judgments
B.D.A. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)197
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M. This first appeal arises out of an assessment made under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act falling under Chapter XIV-B thereof, on the assessee, which is a company engaged in liquor trade, pursuant to a search made under section 132 of the Act on 2-8-1995.2. Various grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal, but the first ground, which goes to the root of the matter, is that the 'undisclosed income for the block period could only be computed by setting off the loss incurred in any of the years falling in the block period against the profit for the other years'. Arguments were addressed elaborately on this point and it was agreed by both sides that if the ground is to be accepted then there would be no need to decide the merits of the various additions made in the block assessment at this stage. Since we also felt so, we heard arguments only in respect of this ground.3. The block period consists of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 (10 years) and...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkumar Jalan Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)296
ORDERI. S. VERMA, J.M. :Before deciding the assessees present Misc. Appln. No. 121/Mum/96, we would like to devolve upon the reasons leading to the furnishing of this miscellaneous application. The assessee had filed the first miscellaneous application on 8th March, 1996, and another miscellaneous application claiming to be the revised miscellaneous application along with an affidavit of Mr. D. M. Harish, advocate, who had appeared and had argued the assessees appeal before the Tribunal on a stamp-paper dt. 5th July, 1996, and executed on 8th July, 1996, filed on 8th July, 1996.2. The assessees first M.A. filed on 8th March, 1996, was registered in the Tribunals record as M.A. No. 63/Mum/96 and was heard on 12th July, 1996. At the time of hearing of M.A. No. 63/Mum/96, on 12th July, 1996, the learned senior advocate, Mr. Y. P. Trivedi, appeared on behalf of the assessee and withdrew the M.A. No. 63/Mum/96.3. The present miscellaneous application which is the third in the series and was...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Venus Dias, Son of Loto Guilhorma Dias Vs. Shri Antonio Cardozo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR384; 1998(3)BomCR253; 1998(2)MhLj371
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. By the present revision application the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th April 1997 passed by Additional District Judge (A), Margao in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 107/96 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the order dated 31st October 1996 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 217/95/C in Regular Civil Suit No. 134/95/C and further thereby has allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent herein and the petitioner has been restrained from interfering in any manner with the suit urinal as well as from demolishing or removing the same till the disposal of the suit.2. The facts in the matter relate to a urinal situated by the side of Station Road at Margao in the property of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the respondent that he is the tenant in respect of a shop attached to the staircase in the building EXR Pereira situated at Station Roa...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Kulkarni and Others Vs. V.V. Kanabar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR647; 1998(2)MhLj128
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who are the three out of five accused against whom process was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay on 5-2-1996 in Case No. 35/S/95. The petition seeks to challenge the said process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The process was issued on a private complaint filed by respondent No. 1 for offence under sections 166, 217 and 218 of I.P.C.2. The grievance made in the complaint of June, 1994 is that the petitioners who are the officers of the B.M.C., such as Assistant Engineer, Ward Officer and Deputy Municipal Commissioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the Officers of M.T.N.L. had failed in performing their duty cast on them by the Government under the provisions of the B.M.C. Act and particularly sections 318 to 325 read with sections 471 and 472 of B.M.C. Act. This complai...
Tag this Judgment!Chougule M.K. and Others Vs. Vinodkumar V. Kanabar and Anothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR726; 1998(1)MhLj904
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1.Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. This writ petition is filed by the three officers of the B.M.C. working as AssistantEngineers and Ward Officer challenging the order dated 17-4-1995 passed by thelearned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay disallowing the B.M.C. Law Officer from appearing in the said case and defending the petitioners who are accused in that case and also in other cases.3. The respondent No. 1 complainant filed the above prosecution in the Magistrate's Court for offences, inter alia, under sections 217, 218 and 220 of Indian Penal Code for having disobeyed the direction of law, in other words the officers had failed in their duty cast on them under the provision of the B.M.C. Act and particularly under sub-section 2 of section 324 of the B.M.C. Act as they did not take action against the person who had dug up the streets and roads, by reinstalling them after the work was completed. By way of public interest ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dayanand Tukaram Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1333
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Galeria, APP for the State and Mr. Rairkar for respondents. 2. Mr. Rairkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-accused states that the respondent No. 2 has died and the prosecution abates as against respondent No. 2. 3. This petition is filed by the State under Art. 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the concurrent orders of the lower Courts rejecting the application (Exhibit '14') dated 5-10-1987 made on behalf of the prosecution under Section 310 of Cr.P.C. requesting the trial Court to inspect the movable Railway property being the subject-matter of the criminal prosecution. 4. The respondents-accused were facing prosecution under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Act i.e. for unlawful possession of the railway property. The railway property which is the subject-matter of the above prosecution in the Court of the JMFC (Railways), Pune in C.C. No. 5040 of 1983 is situate at different places i.e. Lonavala, Byculla, Bombay and Ka...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Dayanand Tukaram Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR724; 1998(1)MhLj565
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Galena, A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Rairkar for respondents.2. Mr. Rairkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-accused states that the respondent No. 2 has died and the prosecution abates as against respondent No. 2.3. This petition is filed by the State under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the application (Exhibit '14') dated 5-10-1987 made on behalf of the prosecution under section 310 of Criminal Procedure Code requesting the trial Court to inspect the movable Railway property being the subject matter of the criminal prosecution.4. The respondents-accused were facing prosecution under section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act i.e. for unlawful possession of the Railway property. The Railway property which is the subject matter of the above prosecution in the Court of the J.M.F.C. (Railways), Pune in C.C. No. 5040 of 1983 is situate...
Tag this Judgment!Ankleshwar Paper Board Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT743Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture paper and paper board falling under Item 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the month of July, 1980, the departmental officers visited the factory premises of the appellants and also their branch offices and seized records connected with excisable goods manufactured and cleared from their factory at Ankleshwar. The officers found that for the period 1-7-1980 to 27-1-1981, on scrutiny of the record with G.C. Note (motor receipt) issued by the Transport company revealed that the party had cleared mill board/kraft liner paper in excess of the quantity of goods covered under Central Excise Gate Passes issued by them. The officers calculated that in this manner a total quantity of 20,250 kgs, valued at Rs. 55,305/- had been removed from premises without payment of duty.The officers in arriving at the amount of excess clearances compared to the quantity given in the G.C. Note of the transport company with the quantity given in the concerned gate pass. Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Vaku Sidi Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT192Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter was called, appellant Shri Vaku Sidi Patel is not present and is not represented. The appellant has however, acknowledged of the Notice for todays hearing of the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed for non-appearance under Rule 20 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.2. So far as the other appellant has filed the appeal the appellant M/s.Zenith Trading Enterprises has filed the appeal for seeking relief in the matter of redemption fine on the consignment of waste paper valued at Rs. 12,750/-.The Commissioner in the impugned order has confiscated this item under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, because he was found to have been used in concealing goods including gold imported from Dubai by the vessel. The ld.Counsel for this appellant Shri H.R. Shetty pleaded that the Commissioner has not found anything for personal liability, in his order against the sender of the goods from Dubai. Therefore, the redemption fine on the goods according to the ld. Counsel is un...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT178Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector, adjudicating upon a notice issued to the assessee, has said that it was not entitled to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on copper rods and bars received by it as an input, for the reason that the certificate evidencing payment of duty by the manufacturer M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. was not valid for the purpose of taking credit. The notice dated 3-4-1991 called upon the assessee to show cause why credit taken on 8th April, 1986 and 17th March, 1990 should not be recovered.2. The notice has thus clearly been beyond six months from the date of taking credit. Although before its amendment in 1988 Rule 56-I there was no specific time limit in Rule 56-I for recovery of credit already taken, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Breach India v. CCE has read into that rule, a period of six months in the normal course or five years where the parties specified in the proviso to Section 11A are invoked for such licences that period has to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »