Mumbai Court December 1999 Judgments

Manilal Chunilal Shah Since Deceased Through His L.Rs. Vs. Shantilal R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR133; 2000(2)MhLj478

ORDERB.H. Marlappalle, J.1. The plaintiff-landlord has brought in question the judgment and order dated 15.2.1982 by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 366/80. The facts in brief are stated as under :-2. The landlord by way of an oral lease gave the suit premises on rent to the defendant and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 16/-. The suit premises is a shop located on the ground floor of building bearing C.T.S. No. 1189 to 1194 at Kopargaon. It is contented by the landlord that the suit premises were given on rent for the purpose of carrying on business of running a grocery shop. It appears that some times in 1972 or so the defendant was allotted another shop (Gala No. 3) in the shopping complex constructed by the Municipal Council, just opposite the suit premises and he obtained a licence to carry out business of running a grocery shop in the new premises. The landlord instituted R.C.S. No. 756/75 seeking the eviction of the tenant on the grounds that:(...

Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Department against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Various grounds are taken by the assessee in ITA No. 5531/Bom./95.Excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :- "01. (a) The CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,500 made by the AC by estimating the professional receipts of the Appellant at Rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of Rs. 4,37,500. 02. (a) The First Appellate Authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 20,000 made by the AC out of expenses incurred by the Appellant on salary and bonus of his employees. 03. (a) The CIT (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the Appellant on the ground that the relevant borrowals were made from concerns whose name appear in Annexure A3 seiz...

Bennet, Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two assessee's appeals for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and they arise out of the order dated 30-3-1990 passed by the CIT, Bombay City VI for assessment year 1985-86 and dated 14-3-1991 by the same CIT for the assessment year 1986-87, invoking the revisionary jurisdiction and passing orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act.2. In the revisionary order for the assessment year 1985-86, the learned CIT held that in view of several discrepancies pointed out in the earlier paras of the order, the assessment was not done after proper verification and proper application of mine. Even after the assessee's explanation on several issues, much is left to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he considered the entire assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He accordingly set aside the assessment in entirety with directions to the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment after proper verification and application of mind, aft...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR147; 1999(1)BomCR722

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner and Shri Singhvi for the first respondent.2. This is a petition by the employer M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. challenging the order dated 5th January 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai allowing Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 855 of 1989. The complaint alleged unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short '1971 Act'). Item 9 reads as under :'Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.'The Industrial Court has recorded a finding that the employer had effected a change in the conditions of service applicable to the workmen and though the conditions of service related to Items 1, 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no notice of change as retired by section 9-A of the I.D. Act was given. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that after the lock-out ...

Manubhai Vadilal Shah Vs. Hiralal Karsondas Bhakta and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR5; 2000(2)BomCR445

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by defendant No. 1 wherein he requested to revoke the leave granted by this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act on 12-2-1997. In deciding this case, it is necessary to state certain facts relevant to this case. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a Suit No. 605 of 1997 before this Court after obtaining leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, the said suit is for specific performance of the contracts which was exhibited as 'C' and 'D' to the plaint. The said agreements sought to be specifically performed is for the sale of the immovable properties which is situated in Bhayandar, District Thane which is admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has moved an injunction application by way of Notice of Motion No. 1189 of 1997 to which reply has been filed by defendant No. 1 opposing that Notice of Motion. In para 2 of that affidavit in reply, defendant No. ...

Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]75ITD307(Mum)

ORDERNo objection raised by assessee while receiving notice under section 263Catch Note:Since no objection was raised by the assessee that certain amount incurred as hoarding charges was already dealt with by the Commissioner (Appeals) revision cannot be taken up by the Commissioner, and the order passed by the Commissioner, and his power of revision regarding this amount are confirmed.Held:It is sought to be contended that Rs. 15,033 spent on hire charges for hoarding is in the nature of rent and not advertisement expenses and does not fall under section 37(3A). While dealing with this ground, the assessee drew attention to ground No. 7 before the Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding that ground, the Commissioner (Appeals) was dealing with a consolidated figure of Rs. 12,67,607 which was said to have been spent on hire charges on various sites and hoardings which was dealt with under section 37(3A). The contention of the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that it was not...

Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]76ITD121(Mum)

ORDERM.V.R. Prasad, A.M.These are cross appeals by the assessee and the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 30-3-1995 for the assessment year 1991-92. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Various grounds are taken by the assessee in ITA No. 5531 /Bom/95. Excluding the ancillary grounds, the main grounds are as follows :'0.1(a)The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 62,500 made by the Assistant Commissioner by estimating the professional receipts of the appellant at Rs. 5,00,000 as against the admitted receipts of Rs. 4,37,500.02.(a)The first appellate authority was not correct in confirming the estimated disallowance of Rs. 20,000 made by the Assistant Commissioner out of expenses incurred by the appellant on salary and bonus of his employees.03.(a)The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,19,952 out of interest claimed by the appellant on the gro...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Gujarat State Fert. and Chem. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT667Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question proposed in the application by the department whether Tribunal's order is legal or proper, by no means is a question of law.The fact that the Bombay High Court judgment in Solar Pesticides Ltd. v. UOI -1993 (57) E.L.T. 201 on which the Tribunal passed its decision, is an appeal to the Supreme Court is also no ground for reference. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Usha Devi -1990 (183) ITR 75, the fact that the Bench of Supreme Court which ordered judgment in Mafatlal Industries -1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 recalling the order considered the question of applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment on captively consumed goods does not effect the judgment of the Bombay High Court....

Gulabchand P. JaIn Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC409

1. These two appeals have been filed against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai made in order in original No.S/14-5-375/88, dated 3-5-1990 under Section 112(b) as well as under the then existing Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. The facts of the cases are that on 18-10-1988, the DRI officers of Bombay unit intercepted a Bajaj Scooter bearing No. BLM 2106 driven by Gulabchand Jain, the appellant before us. There was another person called Dolat Singh Rajput who was the rider. On search of Gulabchand Jain it is reported that officers recovered two foreign marked gold bars and seized the same. From the Scooter foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 8,775/- and Indian currency of Rs. 2,87,560/- were also recovered and seized. The scooter No. BLM 2106 was also seized. The officers thereafter searched the residential premises of Gulabchand Jain and recovered and seized foreign marked gold including a gold crude totally weighing 439.800 gms and foreign currency equi...

Super Scientific Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. and C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application is for waiver deposit of duty of Rs. 29.22 lacs and equal amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the glassware cleared by the applicant from 1-2-1996 to 31-8-1997 (for recovery of which show cause notice was issued on 1-12-1998) was not laboratory hygienic or pharmaceutical glassware falling under heading 7012.10, which is exempted from duty, but industrial glassware falling under heading 70.15 of the tariff.2. Advocate for the applicant contends that the goods manufactured by it conform to the description of goods covered by heading 7017 of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN for short) which corresponds to heading 7012 of the Indian tariff. He says that such goods are to be considered as classifiable under heading 7012 notwithstanding that they are not used in a laboratory. He refers to the definition of the term "laboratory" in the dictionary to say that this includes the place w...