Mumbai Court October 1999 Judgments

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC648

1. There are three applications for stay. Since the matter falls in a narrow compass, I have takn the 3 appeals for disposal after waiving the pre-deposit.2. In these cases, M/s. Croslands Research Laboratories Ltd., a division of Ranbaxy Laboratories received certain shipping documents mentioning that certain goods called "artesunate" had arrived at Mumbai sometime in the month of June, 1997 valued at about Rs. 22 lakhs. The invoice as revealed in page 11 showed that the goods have been exported from Hanoi, Vietnam in the name of Positive Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Australia. It is not clear from the papers before me as to how the appellants have filed the bill of entry in this case without proper endorsement by Positive Health Care Pvt. Ltd. It is the contention of the appellant that the goods were not imported by them. The supplier i.e. Vietnam firm agreed to take back the goods. The appellant stated that the Vietnam's firm informed the appellant that the goods "artesunate" is a salt A...

LupIn Agrochemical (i) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)75ITD278(Mum.)

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these four appeals of the assessee, for Assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94, by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing of agrochemical formulations and the products are used as pesticides. The common issue involved in these appeals is relating to the computation of deduction under section 80-I. The Assessing Officer has excluded the interest income from the income eligible for computation of deduction under section 80-I on the ground that the said income is assessable under the head 'income from other sources' and the same has nothing to do with the profits derived from industrial undertaking. For Assessment year 1993-94, the Assessing Officer has also excluded the commission income of Rs. 18.84 lakhs from the computation of deduction under section 80-I.3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer was wrong in excluding ...

Alpha Associates Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is assessee's appeal challenging levy of penalty under s.271(1)(c) at Rs. 1.30 crores imposed by CIT(A) at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied on the assessee consequent to the enhancement notice given to the assessee during the course of hearing of first appeal on the quantum of assessment. Briefly stated facts are as under : 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee has shown a loss computed under the head "business income" amounting to Rs. 91,12,980 and a profit under the head "capital gains" on the sale of land to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called "MTNL") amounting to Rs. 1,18,66,907. This amount was arrived at after claiming deduction under s. 48(2) of the IT Act, 1991 (hereinafter called the "Act"). Thus the income disclosed for the year was under two heads, viz. business loss and the profit under the head capital gains. The net taxable income worked out by the assessee-firm was ...

Rolta India Ltd. and Another Vs. Venire Industries Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR549; 2000(2)BomCR241; [2000]100CompCas19(Bom); 2000(3)MhLj700

ORDERY.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. The appellants are plaintiff's in the suit. They are aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 17th August, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant to them ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from taking steps pursuant to or in implementation of the resolutions in respect of the allotment of rights shares and/ or from appointing any Additional Directors on the Board of Directors of the First defendant - Company.2. On the request of learned Counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have taken up for decision the application filed in the suit for grant of interim injunction, (Notice of Motion No. 2696 of 1999) instead of only considering the question of grant of ad-interim injunction. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, facts, in brief, may be noticed as follows :---3. Plaintiff No. 2 (Kamal K. Singh) is the Chairman of plaintiff No. 1-Com-pany (for short 'RIL'), defendant No...

Jaisingh Vithoba Girase Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom317; 2000(2)ALLMR518

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the proceedings of the no confidence motion dated 30-9-1998 expressed against them while the petitioners were the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Dondalcha, by Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 4617 of 1998 was Vice-Chairman of the said market committee while the petitioner in writ petition No. 4621 of 1998 was the Chairman of the said Market Committee. On 18-9-1998, twelve members of the said Market Committee submitted a requisition to the Collector, Dhule, to call a special meeting of the said market committee to express no confidence motion against both the petitioners under Section 23A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The separate requisition in respect of each of the petitioner was submitted. On the basis of these...

Pefco Foundry Vs. Baban Ananda Dhotre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR24]; (2000)IIILLJ658Bom

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner Company has impugned in the present petition, the award passed by the II Labour Court, Pune on August 28, 1991 directing it to reinstate the workman, Shri Baban Ananda Dhotre in the post of Driver and to pay him 50% of back-wages from the date of termination i.e. October 3, 1984 upto November, 1987 and from July 1, 1989 till reinstatement. The Labour Court had given the aforesaid Part II award after holding by its Part I award that the enquiry into the charge-sheets dated September 15, 1983 and January 14, 1984 were valid, legal and proper and that the findings were also proper except for one incident. The Labour Court had given its finding in its Part II award that the punishment of dismissal of the workman was shockingly disproportionate and deserves to be quashed and set aside, It is an admitted fact that the workman was employed as a driver from February 3, 1979 and was confirmed on July 4, 1979. He was assigned the work of driving the car of the C...

Smt. Poonam W/O Pandharinath Laxman Waringe Vs. Shri B.S. Mohite and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR605

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu who is detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P.D.A. Act'). Grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu as per Exhibit 'C' dated 8.12.1998. Those grounds are, in short, as under :(A) Giving threat to the Mayor of Ulhasnagar on 25.8.1997 at 12.30 hrs. on phone that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be killed and cut to pieces. At the same time other gang members of the detenu had gone to the house of Ganesh Chaudhary and gave threats to him. The Mayor was required to seek police protection and it was given to him.(B) On 15.5.1998 the detenu to shift his brother in law to the hospital. He went to the Station Nakaat 17.00 hours, two ambulances were stationed there but the drivers were not there. Detenu got enraged and broke the front glass of both the ambulances, creating panic amongst the public. The constabl...

Alpha Associates Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(Mumbai)758

ORDERR. P. Tolani, JMThis is assessee's appeal challenging levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 1.30 crores imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied on the assessee consequent to the enhancement notice given to the assessee during the course of hearing of first appeal on the quantum of assessment. Briefly stated facts are as under :2. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee has shown a loss computed under the head 'business income' amounting to Rs. 91,12,980 and a profit under the head 'capital gains' on the sale of land to Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter called 'MTNL') amounting to Rs. 1,18,66,907. This amount was arrived at after claiming deduction under section 48(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), Thus the income disclosed for the year was under two heads, viz. business loss and the profit under the head capital gains. The net ...

LupIn Agrochemical (i) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]75ITD278(Mum)

ORDERM. A. Bakshi, J.MWe find it convenient to dispose of these four appeals of the assessee, for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94, by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing of agrochemical formulations and the products are used as pesticides. The common issue involved in these appeals is relating to the computation of deduction under section 80-I. The assessing officer has excluded the interest income from the income eligible for computation of deduction under section 80-I on the ground that the said income is assessable under the head 'income from other sources' and the same has nothing to do with the profits derived from industrial undertaking. For assessment year 1993-94, the assessing officer has also excluded the commission income of Rs. 18.84 lakhs from the computation of deduction under section 80-I. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessing officer was ...

Nishiland Park Limited Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing Shri J.C. Patel for the applicants and Shri B.K.Choube for the revenue, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounting to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) imposed on the appellants.2. The issue for consideration is the classification of "Formula K.Indy Single Seat Go Kart". The importers claimed that these goods were specifically designed for installation in amusement parks and would merit classification under Heading 95.08. The ld. Commissioner held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 87.03 as passenger vehicles which would require a specific licence for import. On this ground he confiscated the goods and permitted their redemption on fine.The present appeal is against this order.3. The importers contended that these vehicles cannot run on roads, that they are specifically designed for installations in amusement parks only, that they contained a mechanism...