Mumbai Court January 2000 Judgments

S.S. Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)497

ORDERD. Manmohan J.M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it pertains to assessment year 1990-91. Vide ground Nos. 1 to 3, the assessee contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance in respect of halting expenses at 1/4th of the total claim.2. The facts in short are that the assessee is a practising barrister. In the course of his professional activities, he incurred expenditure on travel and for stay at Delhi, Pune and other places. In the return for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee debited conveyance and travelling charges of Rs. 31,388 and halting charges of Rs. 39,591. The assessing officer observed that rule 6D is applicable to the aforementioned expenditure and in the absence of full details, he disallowed the claim of halting charges. He also disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 out of conveyance and travelling expenses. The plea of the assessee that rule 6D is applicable only when an employee of any assessee travels but not a...

Paros Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT764Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal has been taken up for disposal since the notice has come back undelivered. In this case the appellants have imported populated PCBs which were required for fax machines. The quantity of goods was 100 Nos. of four different types and the bill of entry was filed on 16-1-1992. These items admittedly fall in entry No. 176 of App. 2(B) of ITC Policy 1990-93. The adjudicating authority namely the Additional Collector of Customs found that the goods require specific licence and admittedly there is no specific licence, confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- and fixed fine at Rs.3,00,000/-. The adjudicating authority has found that the M.O.P. for the item was to the extent of 150 to 200% and he also took note of the group reference to further noting that the PCB assembly was hit by restricted category which is 30 to 50% and on the whole he has fixed the fine at Rs. 3,00,000/-. Against that order appeal was filed and the appellate authority i.e. the Collector...

Commissioner of C. Ex., and Cus. Vs. Hortsmann (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT952Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these two appeals, the question involved is whether measuring instrument is entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A or not. The assessee in these two cases, are manufacturing measuring instruments falling under Chapter Heading 9031 and 8479. They were availing Modvat credit on duty paid on goods under Rule 57Q read with Rule 57T. They filed intimation about receipt of capital goods with the jurisdictional office under Rule 57Q(1) and took credit of duty paid on capital goods.Show cause notices dated 12-9-1994 and 15-11-1994 were issued. During the course of adjudication proceedings before the Additional Commissioner alternative plea was taken that these measuring instruments, if no relief could be given, they must given relief under Rule 57A. The plea of the assessee namely to treat the goods under Rule 57Q was rejected by the jurisdictional officer. He also rejected alternative pleas of the assessee to bring the measuring instruments under Rule 57A against which two appeals we...

Baclawat (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC332

1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad on 5.10.1993 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.2. The appellants is a limited Company governed by the Companies Act, 1956. The erstwhile Company was engaged in the manufacture of aluminium Articles falling within the purview of tariff Item No. 27. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 43/75 in respect of aluminium Articles manufactured by them. They filed classification list claiming exemption which was filed on 26.3.1984. On 2.11.1984 classification list was rejected by the Assistant Collector against which an appeal was filed.On 16.1.1987 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessee. On 10.2.1987 the assessee appellant filed refund applications for the period claiming refund of the tax paid from 1.8.1984 to 31.1.1985 and 1.2.1985 to 28.2.1986. The present appeals namely appeal E/520-94 relates to an amount of Rs....

Mrs. Alpana Piramal Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 7th February, 1992, of CIT(A), Mumbai. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee, who is daughter of Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, was having 81,150 shares of face value of Rs. 10 each in M/s. Piramal Rassayan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PRL). Other members of Piramal family were also having shares of the said company and the total shares of the company aggregating to 2,70,600 equity shares were owned by the family members and associate concerns as under : Total 2,70,000 ---------- 3. The father of the assessee viz. Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, acting on her behalf and on behalf of the other shareholders, entered into an agreement with M/s. Akshar Investments (P) Ltd. and M/s. Anusandhan Investments (P) Ltd. for sale of 2,70,600 shares owned by the family members and associate concerns on 1st November, 1985 and the consideration for transfer of shares was fixed at...

Mrs. Alpana Piramal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)76ITD375(Mum.)

1. The appeal of the assesses is directed against the order dated 7-2-1992 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Mumbai. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts in this case arc that the assessee, who is daughter of Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, was having 81,150 shares of face value of Rs. 10 each in M/s. Piramal Rasayan Limited (hereinafter referred to as PRL). Oilier members of Piramal family were also having shares of the said company and the total shares of the company aggregating to 2,70,600 equity shares were owned by the family members and associate concerns as under :- The father of the assessee viz. Dr. Mohanlal Piramal, acting on his behalf and on behalf of the other shareholders, entered into an agreement with M/s. Akshar Investments Private Limited and M/s.Anusandhan Investments Private Limited for sale of 2,70,600 shares owned by the family members and associate concerns on 1st November, 1985 and the consideration for transfer of shares w...

Bapu Alias Sanjay Sopan Hanmagar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR43a

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar for the appellant/accused and Mrs. R.P. Sabarwal for the State/Respondent.2. The original accused, who was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Pune for the offence under Section 304, Part 2 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2.000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half years, has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.3. The prosecution case is that the incident in question was occurred on 10.12.1989. The accused caused injuries to deceased Bapu Salekar by a knife which ultimately resulted in the death of Bapu Salekar. Accused was, initially, charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses viz. Vithal Thakar (P.W. 1) and Anil Rode (P.W. 2). The prosecution also examined wife of the deceased viz. Jayshree Salekar as P.W. 3 to prove so-called dying declarat...

Shri S.P. Apsingekar, Inspector of Security Guards Board Vs. the Palgh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR222

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Jagtap for the petitioner in both the petitions, so also Usha Kejariwal and Mr. Rajput learned APPs for the State/respondents. Nobody is present for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in petition No. 976 of 1993. Also heard Mr. Desai for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in petition No. 977 of 1993.2. The petitioners in both these petitions are the inspectors of Security Guards appointed by the Board constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, [herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1981']. The said petitioners visited the establishments of the respondent No. 1 under the said Act of 1981 and found that the respondent No. 1 had not complied with the provisions of the said Act of 1981 and a Scheme framed thereunder and since default on the part of respondent No, 1/employer continued in spite of request, the petitioners filed private complaints against them before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane. So fa...

Ramchandra Alias Ramyadada Gopinath Pawar Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2114

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu impugns the detention order dated 17-5-1999 passed by the First Respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 17-5-1999, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 17-5-1999 itself. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded four grounds for assailing the impugned detention order numbered as Grounds Nos. 7(A) to 7(D), but since in our view, this petition de...

Smt. Kusum Mangala Singh Vs. R.H. Mendonca and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2363

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as mother of the detenu Rajesh Mangal Singh, has impugned the detention order dt. 18-5-1999 passed by the first respondent-Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dt. 18-5-1999 was served on 18-5-1999 itself on the detenu. True copies of the detention order and grounds of detention order are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.Although in this writ petition Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds numbered as ground No. 7A to 7G b...