Mumbai Court June 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.
Patel India (P) Itd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mumbai)19
ORDERM.V.R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-10-1997 for the assessment year 1994-95. The first ground taken reads as follows :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of the amount of interest not charged from sister concern Designers (P) ITD. & Patel India (Del) (P) ITD. against interest-free advances made to them amounting to Rs. 2,74,430'.2. The assessee has advanced certain loans to its sister concerns, (1) AJ. Patel (P) ITD., (2) Designer (P) ITD. and (3) Patel India (P) ITD. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 5,15,682 on the ground that the interest on borrowed funds claimed to have been paid by the assessee has to be disallowed to the extent of diversion of funds interest-free to sister concerns. The Commissioner (Appeals), in principle, agreed with the findings of the assessing officer but restricted the addition to only Rs. 2,74...
Elmagsol Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated 5-11-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The facts are that Central Excise Officers of Bombay-I, Division F-I, visited the factory of Appellant Automatic Electric Co. Ltd. (AE) on 28-7-1992 and found that they have received certain Reed Type Frequency (RTF) meters from the other Appellant M/s. Elmagsol Engineering Works (EEW) with the brand name "AE" of the Appellant Automatic Electric Co.on the said goods. They found that no duty has been paid on these goods which had been received under challan of Appellant EEW with a certificate stating that the goods covered by the challans-cum-bills were exempted from duty under Notification 160/86. The officers seized the goods namely, Reed Type Frequency meters numbering 369 valued at Rs. 1,94,724/- for action under the Central Excise Rules.2. A follow up search was made of the premises of the other Appellant EEW at Lonovala by the Central Excise Officers...
Shri Jyot @ Jude Wilson Patel Vs. Shri R.H. Mondonca, Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR91; 1999BomCR(Cri)91; 1998(3)MhLj157
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is filed to quash the detention order passed by the 1st respondent under No. 89/PCB/BL/Zone-III/1997 dated 21st November, 1997 of detention of the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Slumlords, Drug-Offenders & Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act for short) with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The petitioner is a resident of Wadala Village and residing in House bearing No. 878. Near Auxillium High School, Mumbai. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that on 8-7-1997, at about 8 a.m., the Police Naik with Belt No. 10767 Bhoiwada Division, presently attached to Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg Police Station, joined his duty and that on getting the information along with one A.P.I. Kanade and P.C. No. 26187 rushed to Wadala Village near Auxillium High ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Govindrao Dashrath Patange and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR775
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. First appeal No. 161 of 1983 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment and order dated 1-8-1982 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Parbhani in Land Acquisition Reference No. 43 of 1980, inter alia on the ground that enhancement of compensation awarded by the Civil Court is not in accordance with law. Other companion first appeals, are filed by the claimants in same reference to seek further enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired, under the same notification. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of by the common judgment and order, since the questions of law and facts are identical.2. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 19-8-1976. Corrigenda to that notification was also issued and published in Government Gazette dated 16-1-1978. Notification under section 6 of the said Act was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated 16-11-1978....
Ranganath Babu Bhote and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR778; 1999(1)MhLj312
ORDERA.D. Mane, J. 1. These three first appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 27-3-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in Land Acquisition References filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation in respect of their lands acquired for the purpose of Upper Penganga Project. Acquired lands are from village Dongargaon Naka. 2. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8-1-1980. The appellants claimants submitted their claims before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per acre. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, however, did not accept the value as asked for by the claimants and assessed the value of the market price of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre. It is however, to be noted that on his own saying by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, he did not collect any single instance for the year 1980 but he has ...
irfan Ahmed Shaikh Vs. Mumtaz W/O Abdul Karim Sarfani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom25; 1998(4)BomCR815; (1998)3BOMLR688; 1998(3)MhLj583
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. On 27th April, 1998, I had passed an order dismissing the above custody petition for default of the petitioner and his Advocate who were absent twice when the matter was on board and was called out for hearing. I had also considered the merits of the matter and after interviewing the child I had dismissed the petitioner's custody petition for custody of the child.REVIEW PETITION :2. Thereafter the petitioner had filed a Review Petition which was registered as Review Petition No. 16 of 1998. By the said Review Petition petitioner tried to explain his absence and sought restoration of the custody petition and hearing on merits. I had heard the Review Petition on 21-5-1998 as the same was moved during thevacation before me. Several allegations were repeated and the learned Advocate for the petitioner sought not only restoration of the custody petition but also the custody of the child. Once again I considered the whole matter not to leave any grievance in the mind o...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the applicant by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. The applicants have already paid the duty amount of Rs. 7,12,898/- even before the passing of the impugned order.2. The applicant cleared their finished products GP Coil, CR Sheets, for export under Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules without payment of duty under bond. Proceedings were initiated against applicants following a visit to their factory by the Central Excise Officers on 6-3-1997 and the charges were that they had neither filed proof of export in respect of 60 AR 4 under which the goods were cleared for export even after expiry of 6 months period and that they had also not filed application requesting for extension of time limit for furnishing proof of export.3. The Learned Chartered Accountant Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, for the applicant pointed out that the case was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur b...
P.K. Abraham Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts leading to these eight appeals are, briefly, as follows : On 14th June, 1993, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized foreign marked gold valued at Rs. 1.59 crores from Karim. The show cause notice issued, in these cases, indicates that the officers kept watch on a ship MV "Kota Naga", berthed in the Indira docks of Bombay Port and that Karim was found coming down from the ladder of the vessel proceedings towards a parked car. He and two other persons who were on a motorcycle were taken to the DRI where panchnama relating to the seizure was recorded. On the basis of statement made by Karim that he was given the gold by a member of the crew of "Kota Naga", he was taken to the ship to enable him to point out the crew member which he failed to do. DRI carried out investigation and issued notices to Karim, Jayram Kalian and Abdul Salam, the persons on motorcycle, proposing confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalties under Section 112. Not...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shakti Capacitor Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. supplied alluminium foils to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Bhopal. This consignee took credit on the duty paid on the goods but subsequently rejected the consignment.Therefore, it reversed the credit taken and endorsed the gate passes on which it received the goods to the respondent. Respondent took credit of the duty first paid on the manufacture of the coils. In the order impugned in the appeal, Collector (Appeals) held that credit was correctly taken. Hence this appeal by the Department.2. I have heard the Departmental Representative and perused the papers.Respondent requests decision on merits.3. The ground in the appeal is that since credit has already been taken by BHEL, it should have issued another gate pass for clearance of the goods and that the endorsement on the gate pass issued by the manufacturer of the goods is not sufficient for credit to be taken by the respondent. Strictly speaking this may be true. However, this is one of th...
income Tax Officer Vs. AlhusaIn Constructions (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)68ITD390(Mum.)
1. This is a Departmental appeal filed against the order of CIT(A)-XV, Mumbai, dt. 7th February, 1997, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and cancelling the levy of penalty of Rs. 67,900 for alleged delay in filing Form No. 26C and thus contravening the provisions of s.272A(2)(c) of the IT Act.2. The assessee is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of builders and undertook construction works both for itself and for others. The assessee-company commenced its business from asst.yr. 1989-90 and its first return was filed on 3rd November, 1989, annexing the audited P&L a/c and balance sheet. The return was signed by one Shri Abdul Aziz Bagadia, the main director of the company. The assessee-company paid Rs. 38,236 to one of the contractors, viz., Hidayat & Associates at Haji Husain Chawl, Mhatrewadi Road, Dahisar (W), Bombay-68. The payment to the contractor was made on 31st March, 1989, and the assessee was obliged to deduct on amount of Rs. 803 toward...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »