Mumbai Court November 1998 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.
Mckenzies Ltd. and Oriental Timber Trading Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR669(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 assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the amount of penalty of Rs. 40,764 levied under Section 271(1)(a)/271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the firm had paid Rs. 29,357 as provisional demand against the final demand of Rs. 31,950 the net tax payable being Rs. 2,597 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment pertains to the assessment year 1964-65. The return of the assessee was due on June 30, 1964. The return was submitted by the assessee after one year on June 30, 1965. The Income-tax Officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not submit any explanation in response to the said s...
Mckenzies Ltd. and Oriental Timber Trading Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN467(Bom)
Saraf, J. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the amount of penalty of Rs. 40,764 levied under section 27 1 (1)(a)1271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the firm had paid Rs. 29,357 as provisional demand against the final demand of Rs. 31,950, the net tax payable being Rs. 2,597 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment pertains to the assessment year 1964-65. The return of the assessee was due on 30th June, 1964. The return was submitted by the assessee after one year on 30-6-1965. The ITO issued show-cause notice to the assessee for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee did not submit any explanation in response to the said show-cause notice. The ITO, therefore, levied pena...
Ganesh @ Sonu Bhikaji Sawant Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Gr. Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR151
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The petitioner, himself, is the detenu. The petitioner impugned the order of detention passed by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai - the 1st respondent - on 28-11-1997, Vide D.O. No. 94/PCB/DP/Zone-VIII/1997, detaining the petitioner by virtue of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Person Act, 1981, (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996). The detention order, confirmation of the detention order and the grounds of detention shown in Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C', were admittedly served upon the detenu contemporaneously on 2-1-1998. 2. The clamping of the detention order against the detenu was based on the following prejudicial activities of the detenu. On 7-6-1997, at about 11.45 a.m. one Miss Maya Lalji Shirodkar, a household woman, residing at room No. 1, Lalji Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Saibaba Road, Khar (East), Mumbai-51, was proceeding towards market along Arya S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Miss Esther P. Carvalho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR549(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 two questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) even though there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year in his return or during the course of assessment proceedings ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was very well seized on the facts and there was no necessity for the asses-see to disclose the same again and it is omission on the part of the Income-tax Officer himself and, therefore, he is not entitled to reopen the assessments ...
S.D. Kangutkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR512
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the Resolution dated 17.9.1980 (Exhibit-B to the Petition) and also the action of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not appointing the Petitioner to the post of the Principal on the ground that the post stood reserved and was not available to the Petitioner as he belonged to the open category.2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows.3. Petitioner has been working in the School since 17.7.1963 whereas Respondent No. 4 has been working in the School since 5.7.1080. By an order passed by Respondent No. 2 (Education Officer), Respondent No. 4 came to be appointed to the post of the Principal in view of Government Resolution dated 17.9.1980.4. The short point which arises for consideration in the present case is: whether the reservation was permissible to single isolated post cadre? In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Resea...
Shri P. Kumaran Vs. Executive Engineer, Works Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR340
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Unfortunately, the 1st Respondent has made various incorrect statements in the affidavit in reply. In the present case, admittedly, at no point of time, Applicant was intimated that Final Bill was ready for payment. It is also an admitted fact that at no point of time the Applicant has received any amount on the basis of the bill which was prepared in the year 1991. Yet, this Application for referring the matter to the Arbitrator is opposed.3. This Application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointing and referring the dispute for arbitration as provided in Clause 25 of the Contract. On the basis of an Agreement dated 10th April, 1985 entered into between the Applicant and the Respondent No. 1, the contract was awarded to the Petitioner for execution of the work as mentioned therein. It is also an admitted fact that the work was completed on 12th May, 1987. After completion of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg) Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Bom)284
DR. B.P. SARAF, J.By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following 16 questions of law to this Court for opinion. The first 6 questions are at the instance of the Revenue and the remaining 10 at the instance of the assessee. The questions have been numbered consecutively, for the sake of convenience.At the instance of the Revenue'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the amounts of Rs. 4,38,842 and Rs. 3, 62,588 for asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively, on account of bank charges and interest on unpaid purchase price of the private forest land ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to recompute the capital employed in the industrial undertaking according to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amar Dye-chem Ltd. 'by ignoring the liabilities', for th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Miss Eather P. Carvalho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)272
DR. B.P. SARAF, J.:By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that ITO is not entitled to reopen the assessment under s. 147(a) even though there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for that year in his return or during the course of assessment proceedings 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the ITO was very well seized on the facts and there was no necessity for the assessee to disclose the same again and it is omission on the part of the ITO himself and, therefore, he is not entitled to reopen the assessments under s. 147(a) ?'2. This reference pertains to asst. yr. 1975-76. The material facts giving rise to this refer...
ibrahim Osman Jasraya Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC69Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on Ibrahim Osman Jasraya (application 1695) and Rs. 30,000/- on Osman Jusab Jasraya (application 1696).2. The Commissioner had found that Ibrahim Osman Jasraya was concerned with the smuggling of 150 gold biscuits valued at Rs. 75 lakhs which was found concealed in a cavity of engine room of the vessel of which he was the tindel. We are not persuaded to dispense with the deposit by the contention that the gold was planted in the vessel by the officer which he could not show because he was not permitted to cross examine witnesses on this issue. The applicant had admitted recovery in a statement which he did not retract for more than one month. He, however, makes plea of financial hardship. He owns no property and that his house has been extensively damaged for the reasons of cyclone.3. The other applicant has a strong prima facie case. The reason for imposition of penalty is that some goods such as air-conditi...
Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Rishikesh Prabhakar Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR6; 1999(4)BomCR33
1. All these appeals are disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of identical complaints respectively bearing numbers 18/98, 19/98, 20/98, 21/98 and 22/98 by District Forum, Dhule directing the appellants to pay amount of deposit at flat rate of interest of 12.5% plus cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainants. Argument advanced on behalf of appellant bank is that on fixed deposits made by complainants the rate of interest was the rate fixed payable from time to time under the guide-lines by Reserve Bank of India and District Forum was not justified in stipulating flat rate of interest 12.5%. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant bank at length at the stage of admission. Without dilating on detailed facts of each complaint, we may briefly state that various complainants deposited sizable amounts as Fixed Deposit with appellant bank under Dhanlaxmi Asthehakra Yojna. The rate of interest applicable was 12.5% for each chakra comprising period of 46 days was to bear interest and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »