Mumbai Court December 1999 Judgments

Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kraya-vikray Sangh Ltd. Vs. Gill and Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR19; 2000(3)BomCR103; (2000)2BOMLR332; 2000(3)MhLj300

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 5th November 1996 whereby the arbitrators have awarded the amount of Rs. 73,700/- against the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent hadentered into agreement during the year 1992-93. The dispute between the parties arose out of that agreement and therefore in terms of that agreement disputes were referred to the arbitrators. The disputes between the parties were about payment of loading charges of Rs. 20,700/- and payment of transit insurance charges to the tune of Rs. 1,53,500/-.2. The facts that are necessary and relevant are as under:- That the parties entered into an agreement which was relevant for the year 1992-93 whereby the respondent agreed to procure the best offers from the overseas buyers on F.O.B. Indian Ports for cotton bales owned by the petitioner. As per this agreement cotton bales were exported through the agency of the respondent. The disputes arose between the parties about ...

Laxman Appa Sonawane (Deceased by His Legal Representatives) and anr. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR584

J.A. Patil, J.1. This second Appeal by the original defendants has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law, namely, (i) Whether the lower Appellate Court has committed an error of jurisdiction by modifying the decree of the Trial Court in the absence of the cross objection or cross Appeal by the plaintiff and (ii) Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'Act 1971') are applicable to the suit property. The relevant facts which lie in the backdrop of these two questions may be stated in brief as under:-2. The dispute between the parties relates to an open piece of land bearing Sub-Plot No. 176 of Final Plot No. 9-B of T.P. Scheme No. 1 of Raviwar Peth, Solapur. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, on the ground that she is owner of the suit property and that she had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 3.10.1974 from her fathe...

Gulf Oil India Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(Mumbai)182

ORDERM.V.R. Prasad, A.MThese four appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. These appeals are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 9th July, 1999, for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 upholding the orders under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act holding that the assessee should have, deducted tax at source from the payments made to the following eight parties at 20`% under the provisions of section 194-1 in each of the concerned years:(1) Acme Industrial Corporation.(2) The Jai Hind Oil Mills.(3) Jayant Oil Mills(4) Shah Kanji Narshi(5) Petrochem Services(6) Aegis Chemicals Inds. Ltd.(7) Tirupati Inds. Ltd.(8) V.V.F. Ltd.3. The assessee manufactures and trades in lubricant oils. For this purpose it. imports base oil. It is required to store lubricant and base oil during the course of its business. For storing this oil, the assessee has hired certain tanks under contracts with the above-mentioned...

Smt. Lalitha Ramaswamy Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]75ITD293(Mum)

ORDERM. A. Bakshi, J.M.The only dispute in this appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1989-90. is relating to assessment of capital gains in respect of sale of bungalow at Bangalore. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee had entered into an agreement for sale in regard to a bungalow at Bangalore on 9-6-1988. As per the agreement the assessee agreed to sell the aforementioned immovable property in consideration of Rs. 9,60,000 which was to be received as per the schedule of payments given in clause 2 of the agreement reproduced hereunder:'2. The schedule of payment of the sale consideration by the purchaser to the vendor shall be detailed hereunder, namely:-(a) Rs. 1,25,000 is paid alongwith the agreement(b) Rs. 1,75,000 will be paid before 31-8-1988(c) Rs. 2,50,000 will be paid before 30-11-1988(d) Rs. 1,25,000 will be paid before 31-1-1989(e) Rs. 1,60,000 will be paid before 30-6-1989(f) Final payment of R...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT778Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question posed for reference in the application is (1) whether the provisions of interest of Section 61(2) of Customs Act, 1962 is applicable on the amount of duty withheld by the importer of warehoused goods due to stay of court where the warehoused goods were cleared during the permitted period without payment of that amount of duty, and (2) whether interest on withheld amount of duty is chargeable in terms of Section 61(2) read with Section 59 of Customs Act, 1962 in absence of any specific provisions for charging interest under Customs Act, 1962.2. We have heard both sides. In disposing of an identical questions posed in an earlier application C/RA-38 & 41/98, the Tribunal had observed as follows: "3. The question for consideration before the bench was whether interest was payable on delayed payment of auxiliary duty and additional duty of customs on warehoused goods at the time of their removal. When the goods were actually removed these duties were not collected, in v...

Keshav B. Bhujle Vs. E.B.V. Nair

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)75ITD163(Mum.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 19th September, 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The first ground taken is that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to grant depreciation at 100 per cent on bamboo used for hiring business.3. The assessee deals in bamboo and also hires it out. It is claimed that the assessee has been maintaining separate ledger accounts for the bamboo purchased as stock-in-trade and for the bamboo used as plant for hiring out. However, upto the asst. yr. 1989-90, no depreciation was claimed on the bamboo used for hiring out and only a deduction was claimed on an ad hoc basis for destruction of bamboos. But from the asst. yr. 1990-91, it is claimed that the assessee was advised that it was eligible for depreciation on the bamboo used for hiring out on the ground that it constituted 'plant' used for business and as the cost of each bamboo is less than Rs. 5,000, it claimed depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, the ...

Birla at and T Communication Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)77ITD142(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a company. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1997-98, for the previous year ended on 31-3-1997.2. There are two disputes raised by the assessee. The first is regarding the correctness of the prima facie adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) of the Act by disallowing a sum of Rs. 31.38 crores, for the reasons given by him in the Adjustment Explanatory Sheet. The second dispute, which is the more important one is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in levying additional income-tax of Rs. 2,69,86,800 under section 143(1A), as a consequence to the prima facie adjustment.3. We may first take up the new dispute namely, the levy of the additional income-tax under section 143(1A), the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge additional tax from the assessee where as a result of the prima facie adjustment made under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1), the income declared by the assessee, in...

Birla at and T Communication Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is a company. The appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1997-98, for the previous year ended on 31st March, 1997.2. There are two disputes raised by the assessee. The first is regarding the correctness of the prima facie adjustment made by the AO under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act by disallowing a sum of Rs. 31.38 crores, for the reasons given by him in the adjustment explanatory sheet. The second dispute, which is the more important one is whether the AO was justified in levying additional income-tax of Rs. 2,69,86,800 under s.143(1A), as a consequence to the prima facie adjustment.3. We may first take up the main dispute, namely, the levy of the additional income-tax under s. 143(1A), the AO is empowered to charge additional tax from the assessee where as a result of the prima facie adjustment made under the first proviso to cl. (a) of sub-s. (1), the income declared by the assessee in the return is increased or the loss declared by such person is red...

Union of India Through General Manager, Western Railway Vs. the Tata H ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2000Bom272; 2000(1)ALLMR475; 2000(2)BomCR547; 2000(3)MhLj856

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner challenges the award made by the sole arbitrator. It appears that the reference was made to the arbitrator in view of the agreement between the parties dated 7th July, 1971. Clause 20 of that agreement provides for reference of the disputes arising between the parties to an arbitrator. The disputes between the parties were regarding the amount of electricity consumption by the petitioner for the period from October, 1991 to May, 1993. The arbitrator has made an award directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four corers).2. The learned Additional Solicitor General Dr. Chandrachud challenges the award on the ground that the dispute that has been decided by the arbitrator was non-arbitrable. In the submission of the learned Counsel, in view of the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, there is exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Electrica...

Raman Wasudev Walawalkar Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR243; 2000(2)BomCR552; (2000)1BOMLR618; 2000(3)MhLj192

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned arbitrator under the provisions of section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question that has been submitted for the opinion of the Court is'Can a party by conduct either waiver of objection or by acquiescence impliedlyconsent to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator?'This question arose in the following factual background. 2. Admittedly there is a contract entered into between the claimant and the respondent dated 31-7-1991. There is an arbitration clause in that agreement, which reads as under:- 'Please note that any dispute or difference arising out of this contract shall be settled by an arbitration as per the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act x of 1940. The venue of any such arbitration shall be in Greater Bombay.'It appears that the claimant issued a notice dated 25th October, 1994 to the respondent detailing the disputes that have arisen between the parties and invoking the arbitration clause. The portion ...