Mumbai Court October 2000 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Gopal Krishna Suri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR819(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J.1. The question referred to this Court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under :Question quoted from I.T.R. No. 52 of 1993.'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that 25% deduction is admissible at the threshold from the incentive bonus received by the assessee, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India which is assessable under the head 'income from salaries'2. The facts giving rise to the above References are as follows. For the sake of brevity, we have taken the facts from Income Tax Reference No. 52 of 1993. Since common question of fact and law arises in the above group of References, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The assessee is a Development Officer of L.I.C.. He received an incentive bonus of Rs. 79,216/- from L.I.C.. As a Development Officer, he was required to maintain an Organisation, to recruit and train agents. For that purpose, he i...
Kantilal Alias Chandrakant Shrirang More Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.9.1996 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 192 of 1995, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in short is as under :The appellant and the deceased Vishwas were residents of village Dighanchi situated in District Sangli. On 26.5.1995 at about 11 a.m. Sarjerao Budhawale P.W.3 was grazing sheeps in the area known as Khandoba temple on the outskirts of village Dighanchi. He saw that the appellant with a small sickle attached to a stick climbed a jambul tree and shook some of its branches. When he was about to get down, the deceased Vishwas arrived on the spot. A scuffle between the appellant and Vishwas took place. Both chased one another. Thereafter, the appell...
Sopan Marutirao Pottulwar Vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commission an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR155; 2001(2)BomCR740
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Advocates for the parties.2. Perused the record.3. The petition arises from the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting the claim of the petitioner to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe.4. The Scrutiny Committee found that the school records in relation to the caste of the petitioner was changed at the instance of the father of the petitioner and that too much after the petitioner had left the school and the said change was from Mannerwar to Mannerwarlu as well as the change of surname from Mali to Pottulwar, and therefore, the Committee considered the claim of the petitioner unbelievable and refused to give any credence to the other documents like affidavits and certificates of persons claimed to be of blood relations of the petitioner. The said order of the Scrutiny Committee has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner as t...
Asha Sunder Shivdasani Vs. V. Aruna Ramesh Kriplani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)592; 2001CriLJ2146
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Ramesh Lekhraj Kriplani is the husband of Mrs. Aruna Kriplani. The said Aruna Kriplani filed a petition for probate in respect of last Will and testament of Mrs. Sitabai Lalchand Jagasia vide Petition No. 668 of 1988. In that petition nobody was joined as respondent. It was filed on 18-11-1-988 and the probate was granted to the said Aruna Kriplani by this Court on 9-3-1995. Mrs. Aruna Kriplani claimed in the said petition that she was the only legal heir and she was also sole executrix named in the Will. It was also stated that deceased-Sitabai Jagasia died as a widow and issueless.2. It appears that there after Ms. Asha Shivdasani filed a Misc. Petition No. 46 of 1999 for revocation of the probate of the Will granted to Mrs. Aruna Kriplani, vide Misc. Petition No. 46 of 1999 Ms. Asha Shivdasani claimed that she was the daughter of Mrs. Chandravati Kishinchand Vazirani who was the sister of husband of the deceased i.e. the sister of Lalchand Narayandas Jagasia and...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gopal Krishna Suri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Bom)266
S. H. Kapadia, J.The question referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is as under :Question quoted from Income Tax Reference No. 52 of 1993'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that 25 per cent deduction is admissible at the threshold from the incentive bonus received by the assessee, a Development Officer of LIC of India which is assessable under the head 'income from salaries.'2. The facts giving rise to the above references are as follows. For the sake of brevity, we have taken the facts from Income Tax Reference No. 52 of 1993. Since common question of fact and law arises in the above group of references, they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The assessee is a Development Officer of LIC. He received an incentive bonus of Rs. 79,216 from LIC. As a Development Officer, he was required to maintain an organization, to recruit and train agents. For that purpose, he incurred ce...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Pankaj Petropack Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT156Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of strips of width not exceeding 5 millimetre, woven fabrics and woven sacks of high density polyethylene or polypropylene. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has classified in Raj Packwell Ltd. v.Union of India -1990 (50) E.L.T. 201.2. The ground in the appeal, that this judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been appealed before the Supreme Court, as emphasized by the departmental, representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. The fact that the judgment of the High Court may be appealed, is not a ground for not following its ratio. In any event, the Board has itself accepted, by issue of an order under Section STB of the Act, the classification of these goods under Chapter 39 of the tariff, as decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court....
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Bhor Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal filed AR4A declarations in 1990 for clearance of floor tiles and adhesive solution without payment of duty.The AR4A applications in each case indicated that the goods were to be supplied to M/s. Korea Tocoma Marine Industries, Vizag Camp, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Ware House, Vizagapatnam. The AR4A forms indicated that the goods were being sent under bond as "deemed export". The goods were examined and sealed according to the procedure laid down by the jurisdictional Superintendent and permitted to be removed. Subsequent enquiries by the department showed that the goods had not been exported. The department was informed by the Customs authorities at Vizagapatnam that the goods were used towards construction of a ship by M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. for supply to the Indian Navy. The notice invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act alleging mis-declaration that the goods were for "deemed export". ...
Tube Investment of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of shapes and sections of iron and steel manufactured by the appellant by cold formed or cold finished method.2. The Collector (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in Tube Investment India v. CCE -1994 (71) E.L.T. 171 that these goods, which ultimately form part of bodies of motor vehicles are to be classified under Heading 87.08 of the tariff as parts of such bodies.However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in its decision in Press Metal Corporation Ltd. v. CCE -2000 (119) E.L.T. 217 has held that these shapes and sections are to be classified under Heading 7216.20.It has confined the ratio of the decision in the appellant's own case reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 172 to the facts of the case before it.3. The representative of the appellant is correct in saying that to the extent that the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) which is impugned before us, has re...
Trent Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT800Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1.11 crores approximately. The duty, equivalent to the penalty, and interest of Rs. 5 lakhs demanded in the order has already been deposited.2. Duty had been demanded on redetermining the value of goods manufactured at the Deonar factory belonging to applicant, earlier known as M/s. Lakme Limited. By a memorandum of understanding dated 22-6-1998, Lakme Limited sold this factory as a going concern to Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL for short). This was subject to the obtaining of statutory approvals, among which was a clearance under Section 269C of the Income-tax Act. This clearance was obtained on 10-11-1998 the transfer of the factory to HLL with effect from 1-6-1998 was ratified. During this period the goods manufactured by Lakme Limited in this factory were sold to the applicant. This company was initially set up as a joint venture between Lakme Limited and HLL, each holding 50% of the stocks. On 20-5-1998 Lakme Ltd. sold ...
Raisoni Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT176Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this appeal the question that arise for consideration is whether goods in question namely garlic is to be classified under heading 071290.04 or not and whether they could not be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act.2. The questions have been already decided by the Tribunal in the similar matters in Appeal Nos. C/238, 245, 260, 489, 493, 495-R/2000-Mum. Order Nos. C-II/2562-67 (date of hearing which was on 6-7-2000 and issued on 18-9-2000) we have therefore taken up the instant appeal with the consent both sides after waiving pre-deposit.3. As stated in the first paragraph issue involved in this appeal is about classification of the goods namely 180 MT of goods described as Dried Garlic. In our judgment 6-7-2000 (supra) we have held that the product should be classified to come under 0712.90. (Infact. in our earlier judgment it is wrongly typed as 0701.90 at paragraph 8 which is a typographical error). We follow the above judgment and held that the goods come under...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »